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 first study had misrepresented their reading preferences.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
Researchers from the University of Waymarsh conducted studies examining the reading habits of Waymarsh citizens. The arguer states that in the first study respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading materials, however, the results from the second study, conducted by the same researchers, invalidates the first study. The arguer reasons using evidence indicating that the type of book most frequently checked out of each public library in Waymarsh was the mystery novel. Therefore, the first study had misrepresented their reading preferences. While the arguer’s conclusions may appear convincing at first glance, upon deeper examination the argument is hampered by several unaddressed assumptions that dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the arguer’s conclusion.
Firstly, the first flaw found in the given argument is that the arguer erroneously assumes both studies are roughly comparable. For example, the first study appeared to entail a poll in which respondents stated their preferred reading material while the second examined the frequency in which certain book types were checked out. It is highly likely that the discrepancy between the two studies can be attributed to the two very distinct methodologies used to collect their data. Moreover, the author fails to mention exactly what questions the respondents were given in the first survey. Perhaps, the first survey only asked the participants if whether they preferred classic literature or magazines as their preferred reading material. The author might benefit if they were to conduct a uniform study using identical methodologies as well as including more information about the survey questions. As now it stands the author’s conclusion is indefensible.
Secondly, building off the previous assumption is the assumed correlation drawn between one’s reading preferences and the type of book checked out of the library. Just because the mystery novel was found to be the most frequently checked out book at the public libraries does not necessarily indicate a love for mystery novels. For example, middle school students may have been assigned a mystery novel for their summer reading assignments, and begrudgingly checked these books out at their local libraries. For this reason, it would be unreasonable for the author to assume a correlation between these two things.
Thirdly, another error identified in the given argument is that the author unfairly assumes that the citizens polled in the first survey are the same citizens checking out the mystery novels from the libraries. For example, the arguer’s own vague terminology identifies both survey’s sample groups as “citizens of Waymarsh”. If it turned out that the citizens checking out the mystery novels were not the same citizens polled in the first survey the author’s conclusion would be unequivocally refuted.
In sum, the conclusion drawn by the author is fallacious, for the reasons mentioned above. To bolster the argument the author might benefit from implementing surveys asking a broad range of citizens from a variety of different backgrounds and age groups what their preferred reading materials are.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 485 350
No. of Characters: 2633 1500
No. of Different Words: 223 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.693 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.429 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.794 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 213 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 168 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 110 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.095 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.457 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.541 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.075 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 900, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...information about the survey questions. As now it stands the author’s conclusion i...
^^
Line 7, column 326, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ample groups as “citizens of Waymarsh”. If it turned out that the citizens checkin...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, well, while, for example, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2710.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 485.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.58762886598 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69283662038 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91105690628 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478350515464 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 819.9 705.55239521 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.4202517086 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.047619048 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0952380952 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.38095238095 5.70786347227 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.321289933755 0.218282227539 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102473886916 0.0743258471296 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.109446548192 0.0701772020484 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175647833046 0.128457276422 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.123604329215 0.0628817314937 197% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.3799401198 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.44 12.5979740519 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.24 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 137.0 98.500998004 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.