【kaleidoscope】第五次作业Argument161 by Atticuswang

atticuswangUID: 2663189

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.

提纲：
1.图书馆的mystery novels 借阅量打不一定表示读此类书的人一定就多。
2.即便有很多人借阅此类书，但是单纯依靠public libraries的图书借阅量并不能判断人们喜欢mystery novels 多过literary classics，还有其他渠道。
3.可能前面一次调查问卷对应的人群和经常使用图书馆的人群不相同，两者的比较并不能具有代表性。

In the argument, the author cited two studies about the reading habit in Leeville city conducted by the same researchers and he concludes that the first study had misrepresented citizens' reading habits. In his opinion, the first study showed that literary classics were preferred, while the second study showed that the most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel instead of literary classics. However, as far as I am concerned, I find the author's deduce was unreasonable, as discussed below.

To start with, the author granted the belief that books most frequently checked out of the public libraries are ones people love best. However, it is not necessarily the fact at all and there is no clear casual relationship between the check-out times and people preference to certain books. For example, maybe there are more mystery books than literary classics in the public libraries and certainly the average check-out rate of the former is higher than the latter. Or, perhaps mystery novels are easier to read for entertainment, compared with literary classics which calls for more thought; as a result, more novels rather than literary classics can be read during the same period. hence even if people are more interested in literary classics the check-out rate of which is unnecessarily high.

Moreover, it was presumptuous for the author to judge the people's preference of books merely according to books that most frequently checked out in the public libraries. Admittedly, the public library serves as an important channel where people can get books to read, yet it is not unique. College students can lend books from the college libraries, which are often sponsored by private organizations. And some readers are fond of spending their time in bookshops or some relevant clubs. In addition, with the help of internet, more and more young readers turn their attention to the electronic books instead of the traditional reading materials. Without taking all these factors into consideration, the result of the second study was hard to convince me to get an answer to the question what people's favorite books are.

And also, it is possible that the comparison between the two studies was no representative because the author failed to offer any details about the studies. Perhaps the respondents of the two studies were insufficient to cover all the Leeville citizens therefore it lent less support to represent all people's reading habits. Even if the number of respondents is large enough, yet the author could not make sure that the two groups of respondents have the same or similar rate of using the public libraries. So how can we draw any reliable conclusion according to such studies?

To sum up, the author's conclusion was unpersuasive. To bolster his/her point of view, the author should make sure the two studies were conducted based on the same respondents. In addition, the author must get to clarify his misunderstanding that most books frequently checked out were books most people like; he may take some other channels where people did their reading into consideration as well.

wdassfmUID: 2542447

In the argument, the author cited two studies about the reading habit in Leeville city conducted by the same researchers and he concludes that the first study had misrepresented citizens' reading habits. In his opinion, the first study showed that literary classics were preferred, while the second study showed that the most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel instead of literary classics. However, as far as I am concerned, I find the author's deduce(deduction) was unreasonable, as discussed below.

To start with, the author granted the belief (?) that books most frequently checked out of the public libraries are ones people love best. However, it is not necessarily the fact at all and there is no clear casual relationship between the check-out times and people preference to certain books. For example, maybe there are more mystery books than literary classics in the public libraries and certainly the average check-out rate of the former is higher than the latter. Or, perhaps mystery novels are easier to read for entertainment, compared with literary classics which calls for more thought; as a result, more novels rather than literary classics can be read during the same period. hence even if people are more interested in literary classics the check-out rate of which is unnecessarily high.

Moreover, it was presumptuous for the author to judge the people's preference of books merely according to books that most frequently checked out in the public libraries. Admittedly, the public library serves as an important channel where people can get books to read, yet it is not unique. College students can lend books from the college libraries, which are often sponsored by private organizations. And some readers are fond of spending their time in bookshops or some relevant clubs. In addition, with the help of internet, more and more young readers turn their attention to the electronic books instead of the traditional reading materials. Without taking all these factors into consideration, the result of the second study was hard to convince me to get an answer to the question what people's favorite books are.

And also, it is possible that the comparison between the two studies was no representative because the author failed to offer any details about the studies. Perhaps the respondents of the two studies were insufficient to cover all the Leeville citizens therefore it lent less support to represent all people's reading habits. Even if the number of respondents is large enough, yet the author could not make sure that the two groups of respondents have the same or similar rate of using the public libraries. So how can we draw any reliable conclusion according to such studies?

To sum up, the author's conclusion was unpersuasive. To bolster his/her point of view, the author should make sure the two studies were conducted based on the same respondents. In addition, the author must get to clarify his misunderstanding that most books frequently checked out were books most people like; he may take some other channels where people did their reading into consideration as well.

不行了，明天再改，昨天晚上没怎么睡，现在思维都乱了~