- UID
- 700204
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-12-9
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
87) In a study of the reading habits of Waymarsh citizens conducted by the University of Waymarsh, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a second study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Waymarsh was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the firststudy had misrepresented their reading preferences.
The author concludes that the first study of the reading habits of Waymarsh citizens had represented citizens' reading preferences erroneously, as evidenced by the result of the second study that the type of book checked out most frequently in libraries was the mystery novel. The reasoning in the argument seems plausible at first glance; however, after scrutinizing, several logical fallacies undermining its validity could be found.
The first flaw in this argument is that the author mistakenly relates the type of book checked out most frequently in public libraries to the reading propensities of the citizens. The former is likely to imply another type of book that citizens in Waymarsh prefer, however it does not necessarily follow that citizens surveyed in the first study are not in favor of literary classics, even other types ofbook. It is possible that these citizens deem literary classics as worthy of garnering, therefore instead purchase this type of book and ruse them at home. It is also possible that the traditional reading method has given way to the electronic books and people could read them on their computers. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author is not supposed to make any conclusion about whether the second study represents more accurately thecitizens' reading preferences.
Even though the type of book preferred is related to the one checked out in libraries, proof is lacking that the two studies the author mentioned are controlled in terms of the citizens surveyed. Perhaps the citizens in the first study are mostly adults, who are inclined to reading the classics, while the majority of citizens surveyed in the second study are teenagers, who are more likely to read mystery novels. If the data is not statistically explanatory, any conclusion made on basis of it is not convincing in essential. The author should provide detailed information about how these two studies were conducted to vindicate the argument.
Granted that the author could present evidence to rule out the factors mentioned above, the conclusion is also untenable that the first study misrepresented the reading preferences of thecitizens. It might be true that both of the two studies are not valid in explaining the real tastes of the citizens, nevertheless it is somehow extreme to veto the first study as a whole. It is also possible that in fact the second study is wrongly representing the result. The author ought to keep his/her conclusion unbiased by presenting evidence to demonstrate that the second study is more accurate, otherwise it will be unjustifiable to make such a conclusion.
In sum, the argument lacks validity in terms of its insufficient information and biased conclusion. Unless detailed information and convictive evidence, such as the methodology of the twostudies, and the relationship between the preferences of citizens and the booksc hecked out, are provided, the conclusion could not be valid as it stands. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-3-26 20:33:13
收藏
收藏
