Argument161 【09GRE作文冲刺组】swbai3月2日作文

swbaiUID: 2600532

题目：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.
字数：430          用时：0:30:00          日期：2009-3-2
In this argument the author recommends that the study of reading habits of citizens is mistaken. To support this recommendation the author cites the following facts about the research about Leeville: (1) they are the same researchers; (2) the most frequently book checked out is mystery novel; (3) they only do the research on public libraries. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them had credible support to the recommendation.

First, the research is done by the same group do not necessarily indicate that the first report is wrong. If the first one is wrong, and so is the second one. The researchers are the same one, and so does the method they use. If someone is not careful in the first time, we cannot assure that he/she is about to change in the second time. For that matter, perhaps both reports are right in certain conditions. Because of the condition of each report, there are not right to say that the two reports are equivalent. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for the same researcher failed once and succeed another time the author cannot convince me on the basis of them that the first report is wrong.

Secondly, even if the most frequency book checked out is mystery novel, the author assumes further that mystery novel is the one that citizens prefer. Yet the argument contains no evidence support to this recommendation. Lacking such evidence it is equally possible that there are not so much classics books in the libraries, yet the mystery novel are always have new ones. Or perhaps the residents may have read all of the classics books in the libraries, and there are not new ones.

Finally, the research is done in public libraries accomplishes nothing toward bolstering the recommendation. Perhaps the public libraries only account as a small part of libraries, and the privacy libraries which make up the majority are not studied. Or perhaps since the variety of classics book is small, that citizens have some of the books and can change them with each other.

In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumption that renders it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation, the author must provide clear evidence--perhaps by ways of local study or survey--that citizens of Leeville really preferred in mystery novel. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know why the researchers make the wrong report for the first time yet succeed for the second time. I would also need to know whether public libraries are majority in Leeville.

ratoUID: 2563435

In this argument the author recommends that the study of reading habits of citizens is mistaken. To support this recommendation the author cites the following facts about the research about Leeville: (1) they are the same researchers; (2) the most frequently book checked out is mystery novel; (3) they only do the research on public libraries. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them had credible support to the recommendation.(我怎么覺得你誤解了呢,首先,作者沒有認為居民的閱讀習慣被誤解了,他是認為居民在第一次調查中沒有說真話;其次,你的第三點,事實上作者沒有強調這個”only”吧)

First, (the fact that) the research is done by the same group do(does) not necessarily indicate that the first report is wrong. If the first one is wrong, and so is the second one. The researchers are the same one, and so does the method they use. If someone is not careful in the first time, we cannot assure that he/she is about to change in the second time.（作者沒有說他認為第一次出錯的原因是在於調查者吧，他是說“the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits”） For that matter, perhaps both reports are right in certain conditions. Because of the condition of each report, there are not right to say that the two reports are equivalent. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for the same researcher failed once and succeed another time the author cannot convince me on the basis of them that the first report is wrong.

Secondly, even if the most frequency book checked out is mystery novel, the author assumes further that mystery novel is the one that citizens prefer. Yet the argument contains no evidence support to this recommendation. Lacking such evidence it is equally possible that there are not so much classics books in the libraries, yet the mystery novel are always have new ones（中文式英文）. Or perhaps the residents may have read all of the classics books in the libraries, and there are not new ones. （你很喜歡用yet吧？，嗯，總得來說這段不錯）

Finally, the research is done in public libraries accomplishes nothing toward bolstering the recommendation. Perhaps the public libraries only account as a small part of libraries, and the privacy libraries which make up the majority are not studied. Or perhaps since the variety of classics book is small, that citizens have some of the books and can change them with each other.

In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumption that renders it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation, the author must provide clear evidence--perhaps by ways of local study or survey--that citizens of Leeville really preferred in mystery novel. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know why the researchers make the wrong report for the first time yet succeed for the second time. I would also need to know whether public libraries are majority in Leeville（in the majority of Leeville）.