- UID
- 819067
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-10-16
- 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 that 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 first study had misrepresented their reading habits.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In the argument, the author believes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. To support the conclusion, he points out that even though most respondents said that they preferred literary classics as reading material in the first study, researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out in public libraries was the mystery novel. The argument seems to be well-presented and reasonable at first glance; however, I am afraid that it can hardly bear further consideration because the facts cited by the author might have multiple explanations, which makes the argument unpersuasive.
First and foremost, even though a lot of mystery novel cannot be defined as literary classic, there are exceptions, such as Odyssey and Iliad, which are recognized classics and well-known for almost two thousand years. The author only mentions that the type of book frequently checked out in public libraries is mystery novel without any further information about specific categories of them. From the point of author’s view, the “mystery novel” surely means non-classic literary such as popular literary in the argument, but the he need to provide more specific information about the data in the libraries in order to prove it.
Furthermore, the author only mentions about the difference between types of books in surveys but does not take account of multiple ways of reading. The respondents in the first survey may read though other methods rather than borrow books in libraries. Considering that there are many ways or places for people to read in existence, such as internet (thanks to this modern technology, millions of people choose to read though facilities which can access the internet), book store (some people might prefer book stores in special topic, for example traveling, animation, to larger, more comprehensive places, such as library), it is reasonable to be doubtful that whether the respondents in the first survey are the same group of people in the second survey.
Last but not the least, even though the respondents in the first survey is same to representative enough for group of people in the libraries, the facts cited by the author still can hardly be a convincing evidence. If those people in the first survey choose literary classics as reading material, it is quite possible that they prefer purchasing the books rather than borrowing them from libraries, for those literary classic books have more readability and are better options of collecting. Moreover, since the number of literary classics is limited but there are huge amount of mystery novel in existence, buying literary classics while borrowing mystery novel in libraries is a better cost-effective and environmental friendly way.
To sum up, after pointing out these obvious flaws in the argument, we can say that the evidence cited by the author can hardly be relied on. Before reaching a final conclusion, the authors should make comprehensive investigation about the categories of mystery books which are checked out in the libraries, respondents' ways of reading in the argument and gather information of the group of people who check out the books in the public libraries. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-10-25 23:41:33
收藏
收藏
