Argument Analysis 13

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.

My response:

The argument states that there was a misrepresentation of an initial study investigating the reading habits of the citizens of Leeville due to several evidences presented by a follow-up study. However, the argument presented is illogical and unconvincing as it is based on a number of faulty premises of which I shall analyze below.

First, the argument assumed that the results of the first study was the caused by a misrepresentation of the respondents themselves. The results could be caused by any other of number reasons including the manner the initial study was conducted. The way the initial study was conducted could be structurally flawed, causing inaccurate results. The author should investigate deeper into the data that was collected for the first study to confirm her beliefs. For example, the author should take a look at the sample size of the study. If the responses was only collected from a small portion of the Leeville population, it could not possibly be a proper representation of the town's overall reading habits. Or perhaps the study only targeted a specific age group, like an older group that mostly preferred literary classics. Without more specific information, the author cannot come to a definitive conclusion that the respondents of the first study misrepresented their reading habits.

However, even if we assume that the results of the first study was incorrect, the evidences presented to bolster the argument's second claim is flawed. The argument states that the follow-up study conducted found that the type of books that are most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries are mystery novels, therefore a solid evidence that the respondents of the first study have misrepresented their reading habits. We cannot assume that all of Leeville's reading citizens acquire their reading materials from the public libraries. There could be readers who prefer to buy their books, instead of borrowing it from libraries. The argument also failed to consider private collections, or private libraries from which readers can acquire their books from.

Lastly, the argument is flawed because it assumed that the classifications of literary classics and mystery novels are exclusive or each other. The argument failed to consider the fact that there are some mystery novels that are considered as literary classics. There was no mention if the mystery novels checked out of the libraries are contemporary novels or classical ones. With this and all the previous flaws mentioned, the argument is still insufficiently cogent.

For all the reasons enumerated above, I come to the conclusion that the argument presented is not logically sound. Had the argument taken the above factors into consideration, it would have rendered the argument irrefutable.