【☆09GRE作文冲刺组】圣斗士3月2日作文Argument161

d596086UID: 2522476

晕，超时了！这个题目的问题很猥琐


题目：ARGUMENT161 - 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.
字数：438
用时：00:35:00

日期：2009-3-2 23:07:21

In this memo, the arguer cites studies of reading habits of Lee vile citizens and a study of the types of book checked out of the public libraries in Leeville. Based on the two studies conducted by the same researchers, the arguer concludes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits that they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, this argument commits a series of fallacies as following.

In the first place, the fact that the type of book most frequently checked out of public libraries in Leeville lends little support to this argument. The author fails to provide any specific information about these public libraries showing that people prefer mystery novel rather than literary classics. Perhaps, the total number of literary books is much smaller than the mystery novels; or perhaps the mystery novels are more easily obtained than literary classics. If this was the case, then the result of follow-up study cannot strongly support the arguer's conclusion.

Moreover, the fact that people are more frequently to borrow the mystery novel than literary classics tells little about those respondents' reading habits. Common sense informs me that the mystery novel is more easy and faster to be red. So it is entirely possible that the time, on average, spent on one literary classics are much longer than several mystery ones. Thus, the frequency of checking the mystery novel says nothing about people's reading habits.

In addition, the author overlooks the possibility that people who prefer literary classics, in fact, tend to buy the books instead of borrowing them from libraries, or they tend to go to other kinds of libraries rather than the public ones. Without ruling out these possibilities, the conclusion made by the author is open to double.

Even though the two studies are reliable and reasonable enough, nonetheless, the author fails to prove that the people who were investigated in the first study just belong to the group of people who bring mystery novels from public libraries. Perhaps those respondents in the first study never or few borrowed the mystery novels. Without further evidence, the author cannot convince us that all the re it is entirely possible that all of the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.

In sum, this argument is unconvincing as it stands. To bolster it, the arguer must provide affirmable evidence showing that the respondents in the first study have borrowed more mystery novels than literary ones. To better assess this argument, I also need to know more information about the number of different kinds of books in the public libraries.