【kaleidoscope】第五次作业argumengt161 by 网兜妮妮

网兜妮妮UID: 2612538

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.
提纲
1 借的次数多不能证明人们喜欢阅读。
2 就算能证明，classics 可能包含 mystery novel, 所以人们并没有 misrepresented their reading habits.
3 另外，没有给出参与人数，并且证明这些人的代表性， 这份study 不能证明 Leeville citizens 的阅读习惯。

In the study of reading hibit of Leeville citizens, the author conclude that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habit as their preferance of reading is literary classics, because it not have been examined in the follow study----which indicate the most frequently checked out book is mystery novel. Although the argument is well desiged, but with several logical flaws ,it was not well-supported.

Firstly, the most frequently checked out book may not be the reader's preferance. The study can only show that mystery novels were popular,which may because they are short or exciting and easy to read, so they are more likely to be checked out. But there lacks evidence to indicate the readers really like this kind of books, or they just want to read it at a short time and then give back Moreover, perhaps the readers think that mystery books was unworth to buy, instead, to borrow from libraries and read it for relax. Meanwhile, they may keep several literary classics at home and spend long time to read,therefore, their real perferance is actually classics. Without more clear interview of the real interests of respondents, the author's anysis is unconvincing.

Secondly, even the most frenquently checked out book suggests the reader's perferance, there exist a possibility that the literary classic concludes the mystery novel. As is known to all, there are many kind of classics, romantic, realistic or even mystery. So the classic books may contain the mystery novels. If so, the responders were honest to show their reading hibits instead of misrepresent, then the author’s conlusion is unfounded.

Finally,the study of Leeville citizens’ reading habits may not reflect the fact, only if the author provide more information on the participate population and where the study was done. if the study were only seet out to a few population, fifty or eighty people, it is not well reprented the citizens.Or if the study was hold on campus, and the respondents are professiors, the result would be misled too. To make the study more convincing, the author should provide more detailed information about the study and the clear occupations about the people who took part in it.

In sum,the conclusion about the misrepresented of the reading preferance of respondents lacks evidence to make it believable. And the study of reading habit of Leeville citizens seems unconvincing as well. To strongthen the argument, the author need more informations about the interviews of the respondents to show their real interests, and clearly distinction between literary classics and mystery novel. Moreover, the participte population, and the detailed information of the participated people should also be provided to fulfill the argument.

cloverlanpusUID: 2606441

In the study of reading hibit of Leeville citizens, the author concludes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habit as their preferance of reading is literary classics, because it not have(have not) been examined in the follow（following) study----which indicate the most frequently checked out book is mystery novel. Although the argument is well desiged, but(不能和although同时用） with several logical flaws ,it was not well-supported.（开头要减少语法错误呦，不然印象会不好的）

Firstly, the most frequently checked out book may not be the reader's preferance. The study can only show that mystery novels were popular,which may because they are short or exciting and easy to read, so they are more likely to be checked out. But there lacks evidence to indicate the readers really like this kind of books, or they just want to read it at a short time and then give back. Moreover, perhaps the readers think that mystery books was（were) unworth(unworhty) to buy, instead, to borrow from libraries and read it for relax(不能这样省略吧，又不能重复were unworthy的说）.(这个观点很好，我没有想到的） Meanwhile, they may keep several literary classics at home and spend long time to read,therefore, their real perferance is actually classics. Without more clear interview of the real interests of respondents, the author's anysis（analysis) is unconvincing.

Secondly, even the most frenquently checked out book suggests the reader's perferance, there exists a possibility that the literary classic concludes(?? ,是像表达includes 么？) the mystery novel. As is known to all, there are many kind of classics, romantic, realistic or even mystery. So the classic books may contain the mystery novels. If so, the responders were honest to show their reading hibits instead of misrepresent, then the author’s conlusion is unfounded.

Finally,the study of Leeville citizens’ reading habits may not reflect the fact, only if the author provide more information on the participate population and where the study was done.(觉得这句话矛盾了，only if 是除非的意思，主句应该是肯定句吧） if the study were only seet out to a few population, fifty or eighty people, it is not well reprented(不用被动吧） the citizens.Or if the study was hold on campus, and the respondents are professiors, the result would be misled too. To make the study more convincing, the author should provide more detailed information about the study and the clear occupations about the people who took part in it.

In sum,the conclusion about the misrepresented of the reading preferance of respondents lacks evidence to make it believable. And the study of reading habit of Leeville citizens seems unconvincing as well. To strongthen the argument, the author need more informations about the interviews of the respondents to show their real interests, and clearly distinction between literary classics and mystery novel. Moreover, the participte（没有形容词性） population, and the detailed information of the participated people should also be provided to fulfill the argument.

语法错误较多，不知是不是写的太着急了，互改前自己先修改一下，互改效率会更高。

网兜妮妮UID: 2612538

谢谢。
我的语法比较烂，给楼上添麻烦了~~