[YB-1]agument161 7.13 by xxhhtt

xxhhttUID: 2477361

提纲：
开头：evidence conclusion明确点出flaw
正文：
混淆概念：mystery novel 与 literary classics
不是互斥关系，而是后者包含前者
例如一些mystery classics "Odessey" and "GreekMysterious story" 此外 每个人对literary classics 的定义也不尽相同。
忽略他因：引起public library 里mystery novel 出借率高可能因为

这类书在这儿比较多，人们去私人图书馆借的书未被统计，人们买下了他们最喜欢的读物
调查时间不够长，受到流行的影响，比如哈利波特系列引起读mystery novel的热潮。
结尾：
进行更全面的调查，和对关键概念进行明确定义，可以使文章更令人信服

TOPIC: ARGUMENT161- In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said theypreferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up studyconducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequentlychecked 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 hadmisrepresented their reading habits.
WORDS: 352
TIME: 00:53:12
DATE: 2009-7-13下午 08:00:03

Merely depend on the result of a study thatthe type of book frequently check out of each of the public libraries inLeeville was the mystery, the author draws the conclusion that the respondentsin the first study had misrepresented their reading habits, because most ofthem said they preferred literary classics as reading material which do notcoincide with the second study.
However,further reflection reveals that the author confuses some significant conceptsand fails to examine alternative explanations of result of the second study. Iwill discuss each of them in turn.
First of all, mystery novels and literaryclassics are not mutually exclusive. Mystery novels can also be literaryclassics. The author undercounted the scope of "literary classics”. Infact, all books written by writers past gain great successes in readers can becalled "literary classics".
There are many mystery novels such as the "Odessey"and "Greek Mysterious story" have long been considered asliterary classics. Moreover, each reader has their own concept about"literary classics". The respondents in thefirst study may refer to these classical mystery novels and had notmisrepresented their reading habits. Therefore, the conclusion that therespondents had misrepresented their reading habits is unwarranted.
In addition, the author fails to rule outalternative explanation of the result of the second study. For instance, manycitizens borrow books from private library or buy the books which they prefermost as reading material. Perhaps, the public libraries have so many mysterynovels that people can find it easily. Moreover, we do not know how long thesecond study processed. If it is not very long, it is highly possible that thecitizens' reading material is influenced by current popularity such as thebest-seller "Harry Potter" series which lead to a tidal wave ofreading mystery novels But realistically, their reading habits are readingliterary classics. Therefore, the second study seems useful, but it still doesnot give sufficient reasons to suspect the result of the first study.
In conclusion, the argument, while it citesa recent study, has several flaws as discussed above. The argument could beimproved by making a thorough and complete survey of reading materials on thecitizens’ hands. Furthermore, to make it more convincing, the author would haveto clarify precise definitions of the critical concepts.

3071001007UID: 2662009

(开头略显突兀)Merely depend on the result of a study that the type of book frequently check out of each of the public libraries inLeeville was the mystery, the author draws the conclusion that the respondentsin the first study (去掉had) misrepresented their reading habits, because most of them said they preferred literary classics as reading material which do not coincide with the second study. However, further reflection reveals that the author confuses some significant concepts and fails to examine alternative explanations of result of the second study. I will discuss each of them in turn.(这句说的不太好，作者再换个说法试试)
First of all, mystery novels and literaryclassics are not mutually exclusive（这个点找的好）. Mystery novels can also be literary classics. The author undercounted the scope of "literary classics”. In fact, all books written by writers past (written by writers的说法有点累赘，另外past的位置有点问题) gain great successes in（among） readers can be called "literary classics". There are many mystery novels such as the "Odessey（是Odyssey吧？）"and "Greek Mysterious story" have long been considered asliterary classics. Moreover, each reader has their own concept about"literary classics". The respondents in the first study may refer to these classical mystery novels and had not misrepresented their reading habits. Therefore, the conclusion that the respondents had misrepresented their reading habits is unwarranted.（我把两段合起来了，因为说的是一个事情）
In addition, the author fails to rule out alternative explanation of the result of the second study. For instance, many citizens borrow books from private library or buy the books which they prefer most as reading material. Perhaps, the public libraries have so many mystery novels that people can find it easily. Moreover, we do not know how long the second study processed. If it is not very long, it is highly possible that the citizens' reading material is influenced by current popularity such as the best-seller "Harry Potter" series which lead to a tidal wave of reading mystery novels But realistically, their reading habits are readingliterary classics. Therefore, the second study seems useful, but it still does not give sufficient reasons to suspect the result of the first study.（这段可以再展开成两部分来攻击。首先可以深入分析为什么mystery novels借出的比classics多，结合人们可能的对名著有个人收藏的爱好，所以图书馆借出量不是很大，而M novels更接近于快餐读物，人们只愿从图书馆借来一读，不愿购买收藏。第二部分再进一步分析这个调查所具有的局限性和可能受到的各方面影响。个人感觉有关调查时间的这一部分，攻击性不够强。语言上没啥可挑的，注意些小错误就行）
In conclusion, the argument, while it cites a recent study, has several flaws as discussed above. The argument could be improved by making a thorough and complete survey of reading materials on thecitizens’ hands. Furthermore, to make it more convincing, the author would have to clarify precise definitions of the critical concepts.

写的不错的！句式什么的不单调，并能比较清楚的表达出自己的意思。逻辑上有些问题，就是整个文章没能通过分段给出一个一目了然的逻辑结构。原文2、3段说的是一件事，第4段说了两件事。别的挑不出大问题了