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.
This argument is based on two separate surveys of the citizens of Leeville, conducted by the University of Leeville. In the first survey, most respondents said that their preferred reading material was literary classics. A follow-up study by the same researchers found that mystery novels were the most frequently checked out books from each of the public libraries in Leeville. The arguer concludes that the respondents in the first study therefore misrepresented their own reading habits. This argument does not follow the facts and is therefore unconvincing due to several flaws in logic.
First of all, it is possible that none of the citizens who responded to the first survey were participants in the second survey. Statistically speaking, it is entirely possible that the first survey contained a greater majority of literary classics readers than are present in the general population of Leeville. The difference in the first study and the study of the books that were actually checked out from the library may purely be that the respondents had different interests in literature, therefore disallowing the arguer's conclusion that the first group misrepresented its preferred reading material.
Secondly, it is possible that the difference in the survey results could be attributed to the lack of availability of literary classics in the Leeville public libraries. Simply put, the library may have thousands of mystery novels available for checkout but very few literary classics in their collections. Leeville citizens may actually prefer to read literary classics - the public libraries simply may not have them for the citizens to check out and read. Another possibility is that the Leeville public libraries restrict the checkout of literary classics - perhaps treating the books as a type of "reference" material that must be read inside the library and cannot be checked out. Furthermore, it is possible that no matter how many literary classics the Leeville public libraries have, the citizens have read them all in the past, perhaps many times over, and they are therefore not checked out. These possibilities further weaken the argument that the first respondents misrepresented their reading habits.
Thirdly, literary classics are the type of book that people tend to buy for personal collections rather than checking them out of a library. It is a distinct possibility that the citizens of Leeville purchase literary classics to read and then keep in home libraries rather than checking them out of the library. Leeville citizens may prefer to read literary classics and therefore buy them for their own personal collections, thus checking other types of reading materials out of the library rather than buying them to own forever. The arguer's conclusion that the first set of respondents misrepresented their reading habits is critically weakened by this possibility.
Finally, this argument does not account for the possibility that the survey samples themselves were flawed. There is no indication given about how many people were surveyed, the demographics involved, or the specific locations involved. For example, richer people would tend not to visit public libraries but they are possibly more predisposed to reading literary classics. Similarly, people who visit public libraries may be more predisposed to reading mystery novels than literary classics. Without knowing the relationship between those first surveyed and those who visit the public libraries, it is not possible to draw a proper conclusion about the accuracy of the first group's statements.
In summary, the arguer fails to convince by jumping to a conclusion that fails to hold up to analysis. To strengthen the argument, the arguer needs to find further research that eliminates these other possibilities that preclude the judgment that the first group of respondents misrepresented their reading habits.
(614 words)
参考译文
[题目]
"在一项由Leeville大学就Leeville市民阅读习惯所作的研究中，大多数受访对象称,他们偏爱将文学名著作为其阅读材料。但是，由相同的研究人员所作的一项跟踪调查却发现，每个公共图书馆外借得最频繁的图书均为志怪小说类。因此，我们可以得出这样的结论，即第一项研究中的受访对象没能如实地描述出他们的阅读习惯。"
[范文正文]
上述论断基于由Leeville大学对Leeville市民所从事的两项互为独立的调查。在前一项调查中，大多数受访对象称他们较为偏爱的阅读材料是文学名著。由相同的研究人员所作的一项跟踪调查则发现，志怪小说是Leeville市每个公共图书馆外借频率最高的一类图书。论述者便据此得出结论认为，这样看来，第一项研究中的受访对象没能如实地描述他们自己的阅读习惯。这段论述没能遵循事实，因而由于逻辑方面某些缺陷而无从令人置信。
首先，有可能是，对第一项调查作出问卷回答的公民，没有一个人参加了第二项调查。从统计角度而言，完全有可能的情形是，第一项调查涵盖了一个比Leeville总人口中所存在的来得更大的文学名著多数读者群。第一项研究与其后对图书馆实际外借的书所作的那项研究，二者间的差异可能纯粹是因为受访对象对文学拥有全然不同的兴趣，因此否定了论述者所谓第一组受访对象没有如实表述其所喜爱的阅读材料的结论。
其次，两项调查结果之间的差异或许可以归诸于这样一个原因，即Leeville市的公共图书馆内缺乏文学名著。说得简单一点，图书馆可能有数千册志怪小说供外借但却没能收藏多少册文学名著。Leeville市民实际上可能甚是偏爱阅读文学名著，但公共图书馆就是没有此类图书外借供市民阅读。另一个可能性是，Leeville公共图书馆限制文学名著的外借--可能只将这类图书当作"参考"资料，只允许在馆内阅读，不得外借。进一步而言，也有可能是，无论Leeville公共图书馆藏有多少册文学名著，市民们在过去已将它们悉数读完，甚至读过许多遍，因此，这些书便不再有人借阅。这些可能性也进一步削弱了第一组受访对象没有如实表述其阅读习惯的论点。
第三，对于文学名著这类书，人们往往购买来作为个人藏书，而不太倾向于从图书馆借阅。一个显著的可能性是，Leeville市民购买文学名著来阅读并随后将它们收藏于家庭图书馆而不再去公共图书馆借阅。Leeville市民可能喜爱阅读文学名著并因此购置它们作为个人藏书，因此只从图书馆借阅其他类型的阅读材料，而不是去购买这些材料来永久地拥有。论述者关于第一组受访对象没有如实表述其阅读习惯的结论，由于这一可能性而遭到致命的削弱。
最后，这段论述没有解释这样一种可能性，即调查样本本身带有缺陷。论述者没有摆出任何资料表明到底有多少市民接受了调查，或所涉及的人口统计学方法是什么，或所涉及的具体地点。例如，较富有的人往往不太会光顾公共图书馆，但他们可能更喜爱阅读文学名著。同样地，光顾公共图书馆的人可能更喜爱阅读志怪小说而不爱读文学名著。如果不知道第一组受访群体与光顾公共图书馆的群体之间的关系，就不可能就第一组群体的人的陈述的精确性得出一个恰当的结论。
总而言之，论述者没有能说服我们，因为他(她)过于匆促地得出的结论无法经得住推敲。若要使其论点更具分量，论述者需要寻找出进一步的研究，排除掉其他那些会否定掉第一组受访对象没能如实地表述其阅读习惯这一判断的可能性。