argument16[7\8\9\10]第七次作业

小猪sisiUID: 2453484

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.
字数：487
------------------------------
In the argument, the arguer asserts that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their
reading habits. To support his argument, the arguer reasons that according to a study the respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material, however, a follow-up study shows that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries was the mystery novel. Although the argument seems to be sound and acceptable, it contains several severe logical fallacies.

First of all, the argument is ill-founded, supported by the evidence that a follow-up study shows that the most frequently checked out books are mystery novels. Arguer misunderstands the concept between preferred reading material and most frequently checked-out books. Because there are many possibilities for people to borrow more mystery books than literary books and in the same time, choose literary classics as favorite reading material. Maybe book stores seldom sell mystery books for they are not sold well and sell thousands of literary classics every month since people would like to read these literary classics and collect them. In this consequence, people only go to the library to check out mystery books and hardly borrow literary classics. Therefore, arguer should rule out such possibilities or utilize other evidence to bolster his argument.

Secondly, admittedly that the follow-up study shows the prefer of mystery novels among people borrowing books from libraries, the argument is still unwarranted and unacceptable. Because it is probable that two studies research on different grow of people that the first group is constituted of the old who prefer read literary classics and in the contrary, most readers in libraries are teenagers who like mystery novels more than others. Consequently, the results of the two study should not
be compared. Thus, arguer has to select two comparable groups to prove his claim.

Finally, even though the follow-up study stands for the preference of mystery novels among people in that area, arguer fails to cite the reliability of the first study. Arguer fails to supply us details about the study conducted by the University of Leeville. It could be possible that
the sample of study is too small to have any representations and how many respondents choose literary classics as preferred reading material exactly and what percentage it is to conclude that most respondents preferred literary classics as reading material. Thus, people in first group do not misrepresent their reading habits but the first study could not be cited as situation all over that area. Therefore, without such specific information about the study, it is unwarranted to make any conclusion.


To sum up, arguer fails to substantiate that respondents in the first study had misrepresented their
reading habits, because evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong support what arguers
maintains. To better his argument, arguer should have to rule out any possibilities rain the
soundness of his argument and offer us more representative studies.

warboyUID: 2444492

小猪好强！这么明天的作业都贴出来了？