Argument161【09GRE作文冲刺组】rato3月2日作文

ratoUID: 2563435

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 arguer cites the evidence that the same researchers carry out two successive study about the realm of books that Leeville citizens read, based on which he draws the conclusion that the informants in the prior study falsified their real reading habits. While this argument has some merits, several critical flaws seriously undermine the line of reasoning.

First of all, the arguer commits a fallacy of considering literary classics and mystery novel as two completely irrelevant genres. Actually, there are plenty of books which can be classified as both categories. For example, the Odyssey, which is a remarkable ancient Greek literature; Shan Hai Classic, which contains series of mystery fiction connected with ancient Chinese geography.

In addition, the arguer fails to take into account other possible reasons why the mystery novel has the highest rate of lending. The public libraries are not the only one approach for citizens to get books. People can purchase a book in a book store or even online, can get it as a birthday gift from friends or relatives, and can borrow it from others as well. What's more, it is highly possible that there can be scarce classical novels and excessive mystery novels, which leads to the convenient reading of some citizens who regularly show up in the public libraries in Leeville.

Finally, the arguer does not mention how long the second study lasted, which can influence the results. Perhaps the high frequency of the reading of mystery novel is merely a transient phenomenon, which can be the result of momentary prevalence. Hence, the arguer could not hastily attribute the discrepancy of the studies to the misrepresentation of the citizens of Leeville.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the ample time spent on the latter study and the sufficiency of both classic novels and mystery novels in the public libraries in Leeville. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the more explicit classification of the two genres.

swbaiUID: 2600532

In this argument, the arguer cites the evidence that the same researchers carry out two successive study about the realm of books that Leeville citizens read, based on which he draws the conclusion that the informants in the prior study falsified their real reading habits. While this argument has some merits, several critical flaws seriously undermine the line of reasoning.

First of all, the arguer commits a fallacy of considering literary classics and mystery novel as two completely irrelevant genres. Actually, there are plenty of books which can be classified as both categories. For example, the Odyssey, which is a remarkable ancient Greek literature; Shan Hai Classic, which contains series of mystery fiction connected with ancient Chinese geography.

In addition, the arguer fails to take into account other possible reasons why the mystery novel has the highest rate of lending. The public libraries are not the only one approach for citizens to get books. People can purchase a book in a book store（这句话很罗嗦） or even online, can get it as a birthday gift from friends or relatives, and can borrow it from others as well. What's more, it is highly possible that there can be scarce classical novels and excessive mystery novels, which leads to the convenient reading of some citizens who regularly show up in the public libraries in Leeville.

Finally, the arguer does not mention how long the second study lasted, which can influence the results. Perhaps the high frequency of the reading of mystery novel is merely a transient phenomenon, which can be the result of momentary prevalence. Hence, the arguer could not hastily attribute the discrepancy of the studies to the misrepresentation of the citizens of Leeville.

To sum up, the conclusion 比较费解，the conclusion指的是题目，应该加定语修饰lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the ample time spent on the latter study and the sufficiency of both classic novels and mystery novels in the public libraries in Leeville. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the more explicit classification of the two genres.

这个Argument最大的错误就是说这个调查小组第一回的工作是错的，而第二回的是对的。这等同于左手打右手，两边都疼。应该从大方面考虑Argument的逻辑，不要纠结小问题不放。

ratoUID: 2563435

最大的錯誤是自己反駁自己嗎

不是他錯誤地判斷第一次是錯的嗎
囧
可是我太專注于扯出字數所以就糾結了= =