【TRANSFORMER】_ARGU161_0805

bluyskyUID: 2657245

argu161

Aza, Aza,Fighting!！！

21点，准时相见！！！

yesrushUID: 2443769

TOPIC: 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.
WORDS: 485
TIME: 0:30:02
DATE: 2009-8-5

By giving the study to illustrate that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville is the mystery novel, the author concludes that the former study, which shows that the residents in Leevile prefer reading classics material, is misrepresenting. The information given above seems to sound on the surface, however, the author fails to take other factors into considerations while evaluation this situation.

To begin with, the author equates the book borrowing tendency in the public libraries in Leebille to the book borrowing tendency in all the libraries in Leebille. The author ignores the possibility that the frequency of book checking out in private libraries is dramatically low and there are a varieties of several factors can explain this difference. It is possible that most of fascinating mystery novels are from the public libraries so that people tends to go to the public libraries to borrow mystery novels. It is also possible that the local libraries has the regulation that the classics is not allowed to borrow or take out, if so, it is likely that the frequency of checking out the classics will rise up when the local cancel the limitation in regulation.

What's more, even assuming that the local libraries are representive of all the libraries in Leeville, the author unfairly assumes that the more frequency of checking out books, the more people’s preference on these books. Are most of the material novels very short, in other words, is it unnecessary for people spending copious amount of time on one novel and consequently people have to borrow many novels in one time? Do the people who enjoy the classics would like to buy classics in the bookstores rather than borrow them from libraries? In the face of such limited evidence, the author can not draw into the conclusion that residents prefer mystery books to classics.

In addition, the author's inference that the preference of people on books is mystery novels bases on the fact that all the conditions between these two studies are unchanged. Perhaps some events happen during the time change people's attitude on books temporarily. It is probable that after the first study is over and before the second study starts, a famous movie on mystery story, such as Harry Potter, shows in Leevile and therefore the local residents want to read the relevant mystery movies after they watch the movie. Common sense tells us that such preference on mystery novels is just temporary and will drop after a while.

To sum up, the argument suffers several fallacies. To make the argument more convincing, the author must provide more information about the local libraries. To better access the argument, the author should present us that it is the long-standing willing to read metery novels rather than other factors determents residents' borrowing mystery novels. If the author had provided the evidence given above, I could accept that the second study is wrong.

shevavaUID: 2574709

The argument is well presented, but not thoroughly reasoned. By making a comparison of the study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, representing that literary classics are preferred as the reading material, with the following study worked out by the same researchers, reflecting that it is the mystery novel that was the type of book most frequenty checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville, the arguer concluded that the respondents in the former study misrepresented their reading habits.

Obviously, the conclusion is dubious, and it is unnecessarily true since there is hardly any information or evidence that can enable the latter to be more convincing than the former. Only listing the two study conducted by the same researchers, even without giving any consideration to the comparison in any aspect, many other possible alternatives may exist, if following the logic of the arguer. Such alternatives may include that the respondents in the latter study misrepresented their reading habits, or both of them, or even none of them.

Putting aside whose respondents misrepresented their reading habits, both of the two studies are not completely convincing, for various details of the survey are not contained. To evaluate the evidence of the survey, how the survey was conducted must be considered. If the questions were leading, or if the survey is relied on self reports, the results must be unreliable. How broad the study was should also be taken into account. Perhaps the first survey was limited to a few teachers or students on literary major, while the second survey researches the adolescents. If so, the generalization drawn cannot apply to most people. In addition, one must conceive of whether it was limited in a certain way, even if the survey was broad enough. For instance, were the study respondents adolescents? Was the survey limited to a certain region?

Additionally, some other possibilities may result in the different outcomes of the two studies. It is possible that the public libraries do not check out literary classics, or even have none of the kind. As in reference to leisure time of people of different ages, the adolescents may have more time spent in the libraries, while the adults may be busy in working and tried out with daily work.

Overall, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, at the first glance, but further scrutiny of the study reveals some logical flaws. To make the argument more insightful and logically acceptable, more details of the two studies should be contained and the given factor discussed above should also be intended.