Argument161 永不言弃第七次 by6#

hidewildUID: 2362646

161 In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.

In this argument, the author asserts that the respondents in a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens misrepresented their reading habits since since a follow-up study showed that the type of book most frequently checked out of each the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. At first glance the argument seems reasonable, however, close scrutiny reveal several critical flaws that undermine the conclusion.
First, the arguer commits a fallacy to confuse the conceptions of literary classics and mystery novels. A considerable amount of literary classics can likewise be labeled mystery novels. In fact, all books that are literarily successful and widely approbated can be called literary classics. Mystery novels, as a genre of literary, do have a great deal of masterpieces which can be crowned as literary classics, such as the works of Edgar Allen Poe. Without differentiate between the two conceptions, the arguer can not convince me of the conclusion.
Second, the argument relies on a dubious presumption that the respondents in the two study are the same group of residents. It is to a great extent possible that the first study was conducted in wider scope, while the following one in specific one. Lacking of more details of the study, such as the time of study, the age and occupation of respondents, the author can not draw the conclusion that the respondents misrepresented their reading habits
Thirdly, even if the mystery novels are completely different from the literary classics, it is presumptuous to assert the Leeville citizens will borrow books from libraries to read. This assumption is unwarranted in the first study actually. To be specific, the result of the first study only demonstrates people's interest in literary classics rather than the tendency to borrow those books from libraries. For one thing, chance is that people have numerous literary classics in their home already for the reason that citizens are fond of those books. Accordingly, they do not need to borrow books from the libraries. For another, a equal chance is that though people do not possess any literary classics as their own and have to go libraries to borrow for reading, no evidence is provided there are plenty of literary classics in public libraries in Leeville. As a consequence, Leeville citizens have to go to other libraries out of the Leeville for books, which is beyond the follow-up study’s scope. If it is true, the follow-up study fails to take this potential possibility into consideration. Therefore, any of the scenarios mentioned above, if true, will make the inference inconvincible.

In conclusion, the argument is not well-reasoned, and inherently flawed. To bolster the final conclusion, the author needs to provide more detailed information about the first study, and the storage of books in public libraries in Leeville. Additionally, if the author could conduct a thorough study again, the final conclusion will be more reliable.