argument161 【today is the day小组】第9次作业 by woyun

woyunUID: 2522051

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.



In this argument, the arguer claims that the respondents in the study of reading habits of Leeville citizens had failed to tell their real reading habits. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that the study showed that most respondents' favourite reading material is literary classics. However, another study conducted by the same researchers found that the mystery novel served as the book most frequently checked out in each of the public libraries in Leeville. As the results of the two studies contrary, the arguer concluded the above conclusion. However, the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

A threshold problem with the argument involves the statistical reliability of the first study. The arguer provides no evidence that the number of respondents is statistically significant or that respondents are representative of Leevill citizens in general. For example, perhaps there were only 20 citizens participated in the study. Or perhaps the respondents lived in the same area where there were a host of literary classica book stores.

In addition, the mere fact that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel is insufficient evidence to conclude that most citizens liked to read the mystery novel instead of the literary classic. No evidence is provided to show that the people who preferred the literary classics often went to the library. It is likely that the literary book lovers would prefer to buy those books or rent them in some book shops. However, as the number of mystery novel readers was very small, the books stores selling mystery novel was so few that the mystery novel readers would have to the library. It is also possible that a considerable portion of the books in the library were mystery novel instead of the literary classics.  

Last but not least, the arguer fails to define the literary classic and the mystery novel. Common sense informs us that a multitude of mystery novels are also literary classic such as the "Greek Mysterious story" and certain ancient Chinese mystery novels. In short, without a clear definition of those two types of books it is impossible to assess the strength of the argument.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer would have to provide more information about the first study and rule out some possible causes of the result of the second study. To solidify the argument, the arguer must define the literary classic and the mystery novel clearly.

FreePeterUID: 2402482

In this argument, the arguer claims that the respondents in the study of reading habits of Leeville citizens had failed to tell their real reading habits. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that the study showed that most respondents' favourite reading material is literary classics. However, another study conducted by the same researchers found that the mystery novel served as the book most frequently checked out in each of the public libraries in Leeville. As the results of the two studies contrary, the arguer concluded the above conclusion. However, the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

A threshold problem with the argument involves the statistical reliability of the first study. The arguer provides no evidence that the number of respondents is statistically significant or that respondents are representative of Leevill citizens in general. For example, perhaps there were only 20 citizens participated in the study. Or perhaps the respondents lived in the same area where there were a host of literary classica book stores.
(最后一个例子略显牵强)

In addition, the mere fact that the type of books most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel is insufficient evidence to conclude that most citizens liked(感觉还是preferred比较好。?) to read the mystery novel instead of the literary classic. No evidence is provided to show that the people who preferred the literary classics often went to the library. It is likely that the literary book lovers would prefer to buy those books or rent them in some book shops. However, as the number of mystery novel readers was very small, the books stores selling mystery novel was so few that the mystery novel readers would have to go to the library. It is also possible that a considerable portion of the books in the library were mystery novel instead of the literary classics.  

Last but not least, the arguer fails to define the literary classic and the mystery novel. Common sense informs us that a multitude of mystery novels are also literary classic such as the "Greek Mysterious story" and certain ancient Chinese mystery novels. In short, without a clear definition of those two types of books it is impossible to assess the strength of the argument.
（我也是这么攻击的，但总觉得这条专门写一段有点汗-_-b)

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer would have to provide more information about the first study and rule out some possible causes of the result of the second study.(这句意思好像表达的有点问题，另外你可以考虑把具体的causes列出来，增加字数+增加argu能力~) To solidify the argument, the arguer must define the literary classic and the mystery novel clearly.


这篇argument基本攻击点好像都差不多。

[ 本帖最后由 FreePeter 于 2008-8-11 17:35 编辑 ]