[YB-2] 7月13日作业 by 忘了密码的E

忘了密码的EUID: 2354139

没动力写I A还越写越短 FML


161. Reading habits (7/13)
According to the seemingly inconsistence of the two studies conducted by the University of Leeville, the author concluded that the respondents in the first study did not show their real reading habits. However, the results of the two studies are not necessarily conflicting, and even if evidence can be provided to show that they are, this does not mean that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.
Firstly, the author failed to provide details about the first study in that we do not know what kind of choices were given to the respondents. It is possible that the first study was about whether people prefer classics or modern novels. Classics, as a certain set of literature works, cannot really tell people’s preferences on any specific genre and there are plenty of mystery novels that are now considered as classics. The first study thus does not contradict the second in the sense that it seems that people enjoy mystery novels a lot because the two studies had different basis.
Moreover, it is not wise to equal the fact that mystery novel is most frequently checked out of libraries and that people prefer mystery novels as reading material. Leeville citizens might be willing to buy all other kinds of books but only would like to borrow mystery novels from the library. This can be easily converted into evidence that is against the arguer’s assumption that mystery novel is the most popular type of book in Leeville.
In addition, the conclusion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits was not well reasoned even if we accept the author’s logic and agree that the two studies are conflicting because there are other reasons why the two studies seem to have ended up with different results. For instance, the respondent body in the first study might not be well selected and thus failed to represent the true reading preferences.
To sum up, both studies have their own flaws and need to be conducted more completed and explained in more details. Also, the author should be careful before drawing any seemingly apparent, but not grounded conclusions.

lossingzoneUID: 2519545

161. Reading habits (7/13)
According to the seemingly inconsistence of the two studies conducted by the University of Leeville, the author concluded that the respondents in the first study did not show their real reading habits. However, the results of the two studies are not necessarily conflicting, and even if evidence can be provided to show that they are, this does not mean that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.
Firstly, the author failed to provide details about the first study in that we do not know what kind of choices were given to the respondents. It is possible that the first study was about whether people prefer classics or modern novels. Classics, as a certain set of literature works, cannot really tell people’s preferences on any specific genre and there are plenty of mystery novels that are now considered as classics. The first study thus does not contradict the second in the sense that it seems that people enjoy mystery novels a lot because the two studies had different basis.
Moreover, it is not wise to equal the fact that mystery novel is most frequently checked out of libraries and that people prefer mystery novels as reading material. Leeville citizens might be willing to buy all other kinds of books but only would like to borrow mystery novels from the library. This can be easily converted into evidence that is against the arguer’s assumption that mystery novel is the most popular type of book in Leeville.
In addition, the conclusion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits was not well reasoned even if we accept the author’s logic and agree that the two studies are conflicting because there are other reasons why the two studies seem to have ended up with different results. For instance, the respondent body in the first study might not be well selected and thus failed to represent the true reading preferences.
To sum up, both studies have their own flaws and need to be conducted more completed and explained in more details. Also, the author should be careful before drawing any seemingly apparent, but not grounded conclusions.


从数学的角度去分析
首先，我们的目标是什么？或者更具体说，结论是什么？这先看作未知量。
然后，我们知道了什么？就是说题目给出了什么条件？这就是arguer的论据，或者前提。
也就是说，一篇argument可以抽象成为去判断一个命题
所有已知未知

分析题目
161In 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.

结论：
The first study had misrepresented their reading habits
论据：
第二次调查
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.

Arguer的推理是：由于第二次调查和第一次调查结果不同就推出第一次调查错误
首先，两次调查到底有没有可能根本就没矛盾？
（1）        图书馆借出最多的是mystery novel，但没人说过当地人最喜欢看mystery novel。一个地方到图书馆的人真的很多吗？或者说到图书馆的人各个阶层都有，从而能够反映当地人的阅读习惯吗？很多时候图书馆的读者多数是学生。因此，这可能只反映了小群体的阅读爱好。其次，这里只提到书被频繁借出，但是问题是借这些书的读者人数是不是最多的？说不准。像mystery novel这种书，一天可以看好多本，读者拼命看拼命借，即使少量的读者都可以使得这类书被频繁借阅。反观文学名著，这些书一般需要仔细推敲，反复琢磨，基本不会给频繁借出。还有其他的可能，读者不喜欢买mystery book,因为他们只需看一遍，反而他们倾向买文学名著。由此，arguer根本不能说mystery check out constantly就说明大部分读者对这类书最感兴趣。
（2）        时间因素需要考虑，世间事物是变化发展的，也许第一次调查的时候读者对文学名著感兴趣，第二次转移啦！
其次，若两次调查有矛盾，那一定犯错的一定是第一次吗？
是同样的研究人员做的调查，凭什么认为第一次错，第二次对呢？arguer应该去重新检查两次调查的设计、调查过程、调查数据，通过对比再去判断。

。。。。本来想演绎出一套方法供你参考的，但是没做到，最后只对这道题目说了点自己的分析。