Argument161【7\8\9\10】第七次作业 7.27

DemiquaverUID: 203651

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.




According to the argument, the author concludes that the Leeville citizens prefer reading mystery novel than literary classics. In order to support his conclusion, the author cites two studies conducted by same researchers, meanwhile he negates the result of the former study and approve the latter one. However, under close scrutiny, what the author concludes is lack of credibility.

To begin with, the author's conclusion is based on an assumption that citizens of Leeville remain unchanged. However, such assumption is lack of evidence. Perhaps, when the former study was conducted, people who live in Leeville preferred literary classics as reading material and were involving in the study. Nevertheless, when the latter study was conducted, people who attended the first study have moved out of Leeville, while new inhabitants of Leeville prefer to read mystery novel. If the author cannot rule out this possibility, it is hasty for him to draw the conclusion in the argument.

Moreover, the author offer little information about the first study such as how many people were involving in and how many of them responded to the researchers. It is possible that only several people attended the study, and even fewer responded their preference. If it is the case, the result of the first study cannot represent the Leeville citizens' reading habits, which may lead to different results between the two studies. In addition, the statements in the argument do not tell us the information of people who responded that they preferred literary classics. Perhaps, those people are all high-educated persons who like reading literature, besides they may prefer reading books in university libraries to doing reading in the public libraries. On the contrary, those who choose to do reading in the public libraries are probably the olds and youngsters----the groups of people that are more likely to read mystery novels. If so, the result of the two studies is incredible.

Finally, I cannot find any description in the argument about the amounts of literary books in those public libraries. Perhaps, there are only a few literary books preserved in public libraries. Then people have no choice but to read other books, among which mystery novels are better choice. Therefore, lacking of presentation about the literary books' amounts in public libraries, it is unconvincing for the author to make the conclusion.

To sum up, the argument is flawed in several aspects as it stands. To strengthen the conclusion, the author should provide convincing evidence that people in Leeville remains unchanged. Moreover, he should offer more information about the first study including the amounts of people who involved in the study and their education level. In addition, the author should do a survey about the amounts of literary books in the public libraries.