ARGUMENT161 =August Rush=小组第5次作业 by 尾羽

尾羽UID: 2482591

TOPIC: 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.

尾羽UID: 2482591

WORDS: 438
TIME: 01:25:17
DATE: 2009-7-21 22:50:01

Basing on two studies of reading habits in Leeville, one supposing that most respondents preferred literary classic and another results that the data from each of the public libraries in Leeville showing that the mystery novel is the most popular type of book. The author consequently deducts the conclusion that the subjects in the first investigation had cheated. It seems to be a reasonable deduction, while a close examination would reveal how groundless it is.

To begin with, the author fails to present any information concerning all the details about the subjects in the first investigation. Such as, where the subjects were investigated, what kind of identities of these people, and whether they cheated in the study. To conclude that the respondents had misrepresented their reading habits in the first study, the evidence the author has proved is vague. Inasmuch, there might be several possibilities that the first study was made in university of Leeville and the subjects are all college students who major in literature, and that the literary classic they preferred due to professional study merely rather than personal interest. Moreover, assuming that the people investigated in the first study are totally students in the university, the representative role of them are worth considering. Thus, the author must present more information about the subjects, or it would cause a suspicion to the reliability of the first study.

What further weakens the conclusion is that the author also ignores to lend the fact that how long time does the first study researching constantly. Because it is the common sense that people's reading habits would be changed in different period time of their life. Such as, we may prefer detective novel when we were young or autobiography written by someone with great achievement may favorable when we were elder. This is another point may crash the credibility of the study.

Even assuming that the first study is empirical, the author still cannot assert that the data made from two studies are distinctive because the false in the first investigation. It is entirely possible that public libraries have purchased a new batch of mystery novel that was lack before. Therefore, the recent data of checking out most frequently is the mystery novel. That is to say, the second study may be not genuine too.

As it stands, the conclusion of argument is not well reasoned. To make it more logically acceptable, the author would have to demonstrate more detailed information of investigations with solid facts and appropriate deductions. For instance, more specific information about the subjects, how long the time of the observation and whether the second study is credible.

wisleUID: 2578616

修改