处女作，大家拍吧～

闲言少叙，只为求拍～
In a study of reading habits of L citizens conducted by the University of L, most responders 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 L was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study has misrepresented their reading habits.

This argument concludes that reading habits had been misrepresented by the respondents in the first study. To substantiate this claim, the arguer points out that the mystery novels are the most frequently checked of the public libraries of L city. However, careful scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it lends no credible support to the claim.

First of all, the author's conclusion about the reading habits depend on the two studies results is statistically reliable. Yet, the author offers no evidence to solidify this assumption. In order to make the studies meaningful, the studies' sample must be sufficient in size and representative of citizens in general. Furthermore, the argument provides no information about the percentage of citizens responded to the studies. The lower the percentages, the less reliable the results of the studies. In short, lacking evidence of a sufficiently representative and random sample, the author cannot rely on the studies to draw any conclusion.

In the second place, even assuming that both of the studies are statistically reliable, a direct correlation between reading material and frequently checked book does not indicate that the former caused the latter. While a high correlation is a strong evidence of a causal relationship, in itself it is not sufficient. Actually, it is possible that the price of mystery novels is so high that only public libraries can purchase them. Or perhaps most people regard literary classics as a necessary handbook, while mystery novel is just a kind of entertainment. Without considering and ruling out such alternative explanations for it, the arguer can not justifiably conclude that reading material determines the frequently checked book out of libraries.

Finally, even I concede that the reading material has exerted significant impact on type of book borrowed from public libraries, the author unfairly assumes that reading material is the only significant factor affecting it. Merely depended on series of unwarranted assumptions and dubious evidence, the argument appears to be somewhat logical, however, in actually, this alone neither provides compelling support to make the argument sound nor organizes a logical argument in favor of the conclusion. The arguer ignores other relevant factors that may also influence the borrowing habits. For instance, the position of the mystery novels is the most convenient and easy to find. If this is the case, then the assertion would lack any merit whatsoever.

In sum, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To bolster the argument, the credibility of the studies should be presented by the representative samples. What's more, the arguer would have to provide more information regarding the price of the mystery novels and other possible causes of borrowing habits in libraries to make the argument more thorough.

[ 本帖最后由 christinagre 于 2008-10-2 10:44 编辑 ]