【Big Fish】03月09日习作Argument161--By Sansouci

SansouciUID: 2755036

Argument No.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 Leeville citizens misrepresented their reading habits is mystery novel not literary classics. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the first study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. Additionally, the arguer gives the 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, which is contradict with the first study. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, the effectiveness of the result of the two surveys cited by the author as main evidence is open to doubt. We do not know how long the interim period between the two studies is, many conditions may change after sufficient long time. It is greatly possible that Leeville citizens actually like literary classics as their reading material in earlier years, but people’s opinion toward changed prefer mystery novels in latest years due to the character of mystery novel is adventurous and imaginary, which according contemporary Leeville citizen’s taste. Thus, the interim period between two studies is, should be provided to sufficiently illustrate the author’s assumption that Leeville citizens don’t like read literary classics.

Even if the two studies is comparable, in illustrating the assumption that Leeville citizens misrepresented their reading habits is mystery novel not literary classics, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The frequency of certain type of book being checked out from the public libraries is not a good indication of what kind of reading material do citizens prefer. The possibility is most Leeville residents usually buy book in bookstore instead borrow form the public libraries. The author ought to make careful and clear differentiation between the number of Leeville residents borrow from the public libraries and those who buy book in bookstore before we could evaluate if the inference that Leeville citizens misrepresented their reading habits is mystery novel not literary classics is justified.

At last, the author does not analyze to what extent the literary classics and mystery novels mentioned in the argument overlap. Some other substantial information are needed for us to assess the soundness of the argument, and the conclusion would vary greatly when other conditions varied. The possibility fact that Leeville residents prefer like to read is book like << The Story of the Stone>>. For lack of detailed information about extent the literary classics and mystery novels we can hardly evaluate the conclusion is warranted.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to explain the circumstance of the two studies. What’s more, the author must draw the line between mystery novels and literary classics reading materials whether there are exist overlaps between them.