【Big Fish】3月9日Argument161-By Rokre2tt

rokre2ttUID: 2714355

In this argument, a study conducted by the University of Leeville about the reading habits of Leeville citizens shows that most of them prefer literary classic. But a later study by the same researchers indicates that the mystery novels are often lent out. So the author concludes that the first study's result is misrepresented. It seems that it is a rational conclusion, but after a analysis, I consider there are serious logical flaws in this argument.

To begin with, the author doesn't refer the population in the first study can weigh how much in all who have reading habits. There are not evidences to support the first study is effective. Maybe the responders in the first study are just those who prefer reading literary classic, but more prefer mystery novels are not included in the first study. So the author shouldn’t say the respondents in the first study mispresented their reading habits.

Furthermore, the frequency of some type of book can’t be considered as those local residents prefer it. The author doesn't refer that why people borrow mystery novels from the public libraries. Someone may just want to tell stories to their children by reading these books, to themselves, they may don't like these novels. This condition can't be a creditable evidence to make the author's conclusion.

Even more serious, the author doesn't analyze the overlap between literary classics and mystery novels. Many literary classics are mystery novels at the same time. The author ignores this fact that may lead the two studies full of conclusions. If the books checked out in the public libraries just are the residents' favorite literary classics, there won't be contrary in the two studies.
Another can't be ignored question is that the author doesn't refer the interim between the two studies. If there is a long interim, many things will change. The residents of Leeville who prefer literary classics may convert to mystery novels later, so the second study's result won' t be hard to explain.

The last but not least, the author unfairly assumes the residents of Leeville who go to borrow mystery novels are just those who prefer literary classics. But there are not sufficient evidences to prove that. Maybe those residents who prefer literary classics don't like to borrow books from the public libraries, in contrast, they may prefer buying these literary classics from book stores. If those who really prefer literary classics don't go to the libraries to check out these books, and the mystery novels are lent out by those who like reading them, the author can' t consider that the respondents in the first study misrepresent their reading habits.

To sum up, the author's analysis is not substantial. To make a creditable conclusion, there should be more messages. Such as the interim between two studies, the overlap between the literary classics and mystery novels, the number of the respondents, and whether the residents who prefer literary classics often go to the public libraries to check out books.

sunny球UID: 2693880

In this argument, a study conducted by the University of Leeville about the reading habits of Leeville citizens shows that most of them prefer literary classic. But a later study by the same researchers indicates that the mystery novels are often lent out. So the author concludes that the first study's result is misrepresented. It seems that it is a rational conclusion, but after a analysis, I consider there are serious logical flaws in this argument.(开头可以指出一些谬误，以前我也这样写，今天我突然觉得大家都这么写重复题目开头就没有意义了)

To begin with, the author doesn't refer the population in the first study can weigh how much in all who have reading habits.(有语病，一句话两个动词) There are not evidences to support the first study is effective.(缺成分，两个句子没连起来) Maybe the responders in the first study are just those who prefer reading literary classic, but more prefer mystery novels are not included in the first study. So the author shouldn’t say the respondents in the first study mispresented(misrepresented) their reading habits.

Furthermore, the frequency of some type of book can’t be considered as those local residents prefer it. The author doesn't refer that why people borrow mystery novels from the public libraries. Someone may just want to tell stories to their children by reading these books, to themselves, they may don't like these novels. This condition can't be a creditable evidence to make the author's conclusion.

Even more serious, the author doesn't analyze the overlap between literary classics and mystery novels. Many literary classics are mystery novels at the same time. The author ignores this fact that may lead the two studies full of conclusions. If the books checked out in the public libraries just are the residents' favorite literary classics, there won't be contrary in the two studies.

Another can't be ignored question（Another question that can not be ignored） is that the author doesn't refer (使用次数过多)the interim between the two studies. If there is a long interim, many things will change. The residents of Leeville who prefer literary classics may convert to mystery novels later, so the second study's result won' t be hard to explain.

The last but not least, the author unfairly assumes the residents of Leeville who go to borrow mystery novels are just those who prefer literary classics. But there are not sufficient evidences to prove that. Maybe those residents who prefer literary classics don't like to borrow books from the public libraries, in contrast, they may prefer buying these literary classics from book stores. If those who really prefer literary classics don't go to the libraries to check out these books, and the mystery novels are lent out by those who like reading them, the author can' t consider that the respondents in the first study misrepresent their reading habits.（写的挺详细，挺具体，前面几段也这样写就好了，相比之下前面的显得不够连贯）

To sum up, the author's analysis is not substantial. To make a creditable conclusion, there should be more messages. Such as the interim between two studies, the overlap between the literary classics and mystery novels, the number of the respondents, and whether the residents who prefer literary classics often go to the public libraries to check out books.

总体来说写的不错，只是某些长句子有语法问题，有点中式英语，经过修改一定可以写的更好！但是规定时间内写出来还是很好的，继续努力！

rokre2ttUID: 2714355

多谢楼主拍砖！
其实，语法真的是我的超大毛病，还有句式也是个问题，好久不怎么写作文了，上去都是统一的定语从句套定语从句，头大。抓紧学习吧