Argument161【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】1月31日作业 by luyaoxu

luyaoxuUID: 2588850

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.

[synopsis]
Mystery novel also belongs to literary classics.
The public libraries are not the only book source of L citizens, without considering private libraries or so.
The time nature of the follow up study maybe temporal, not representative.

[writing]
In this analysis, the author points out that the reading material that most Leeville citizens preferred is mystery novel rather than literary classics as they used to have claimed in a study of reading habits conducted by the University of Leeville. To substantiate the conclusion, the author provides a piece of evidence that a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers demonstrated that the type of books most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. This argument contains several logical flaws which render it unconvincing when it stands.

A threshold problem with the argument involves the nature of the mystery novel and literary classics. The mystery novel can also be literary classics. The author undercounts the scope of “literary classics”. Actually, all books wrote by writers past and made great success in readers can be called “literary classics”. There are many mystery novels such as “Odessey” and “Greek Mysterious Story” have long been considered as literary classics.

The argument also unfairly ignores other book source such as private libraries in addition to public libraries for Leeville citizens. Obviously, the public libraries are not the only book source. Perhaps the public libraries have abundant mystery novel and are comparatively deficient in other literary classics; therefore the citizens dropped by and checked in. Hence unless more private libraries researched, only in terms of the provided study specific to public libraries it's not sufficient or cogent to judge the citizens’ reading habits.

Finally even if the private libraries are taken into consideration, the time atrribute of the follow-up study conducted maybe temporal, not consecutive or representative. The time periods of the study do matter because citizens’ reading choices may occasionally fluctuate with the movie or newspaper blockbusters at that time. When the propagation storm quiets down, the book choices will come back to personal regular favors. So concerning about the temporal influence, the provisional reading choice of mystery novel is not warrant to justify that a lifelong reading habit is not literary classics.

In sum, the author's argument is unpersuative as it stands. To strengthen it, first the author should figure out the category of literary classics so as to make more rational conclusion. Besides, to study the reading habits of the Leeville citizens, both the public and private libraries should be taken into account. Finally the time periods that the study conducted should be enclosed for better judgement.

liuguaguaUID: 2569375

on luyaoxu
Argument161
http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=913595&extra=

waidswUID: 2256074

In this analysis, the author points out that the reading material that most Leeville citizens preferred is mystery novel rather than literary classics as they used to have claimed in a study of reading habits conducted by the University of Leeville. (previous study) To substantiate the conclusion, the author provides a piece of evidence that a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers demonstrated that the type of books most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. This argument contains several logical flaws which render it unconvincing when it stands. (The author’s conclusion is respondents in the first study misrepresented their reading habits, you have to object this conclusion rather what kind of book people read. This is really important.)

A threshold problem with the argument involves the nature of the mystery novel and literary classics. The mystery novel can also be literary classics. The author undercounts the scope of “literary classics”. Actually, all books wrote by writers past and made great success in readers can be called “literary classics”. There are many mystery novels such as “Odessey” and “Greek Mysterious Story” have long been considered as literary classics.(The examples are very good )

The argument also unfairly ignores other book source such as private libraries in addition to public libraries for Leeville citizens. Obviously, the public libraries are not the only book source. Perhaps the public libraries have abundant mystery novel and are comparatively deficient in other literary classics; therefore the citizens dropped by and checked in. Hence unless more private libraries researched, only in terms of the provided study specific to public libraries it's not sufficient or cogent to judge the citizens’ reading habits. (Not only public libraries, but also bookstores, private books were not taken into consideration.)

Finally even if the private libraries are taken into consideration, the time attribute  (what is time attribute, this is not scientific paper. Just the following –up may not be representative is ok .) of the follow-up study conducted maybe temporal, not consecutive or representative. The time periods of the study do matter because citizens’ reading choices may occasionally fluctuate with the movie or newspaper blockbusters at that time.(It might be better if you describe the media influence more specifically.) When the propagation storm quiets down, the book choices will come back to personal regular favors. So concerning about the temporal influence, the provisional reading choice of mystery novel is not warrant to justify that a lifelong reading habit is not literary classics.

In sum, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, first the author should figure out the category of literary classics so as to make more rational conclusion. Besides, to study the reading habits of the Leeville citizens, both the public and private libraries should be taken into account. Finally the time periods that the study conducted should be enclosed for better judgement.


It is pretty good. But I think you could make it better if you think it more deeply and make your own standpoint more persuasive and reasonable.