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.
The author of the argument concludes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading preferences. To buttress his argument, the author cites that the first study shows that most respondents prefer literary classics as reading material, while most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries was mystery novel. while it might be true that first study might be misrepresentative based on different results from two studies, we cannot fully evaluate the argument due to the some questionable stated and unstated assumptions.
To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading preferences. However, such assumption might not be meaningful if we are not offered detailed information about the study. For example, it is possible that most participants in the survey are students, who prefer literary classics to novel, while other age group residents have different preferences. When disproportionate number of students are in the survey, the result is perhaps biased and not representative. Therefore, the variance in study might be resulted from uneven distribution of people from different age groups in the survey rather than from people's misrepresentation. In addition, it is also plausible that the sample size is too small to get the comprehensive ideas of people's opinions. Hence, increasing number of respondents would perhaps deflect the results. The time duration of second study is quite significant as well. one year total number of books checked out in individual section might be more useful than one month similar statistics.
Moreover, the author assumes that number of books checked out reveal the exact reflection of people's preferences. Nonetheless, such assumption fails to take account of availability of books and purpose for checking out books in these libraries. In all likelihood, libraries have much more collections of mystery novel, then most people cannot obtain their favorites, so that they have to choose other types of books to read. it is also plausible that library classics in most public libraries can only be read within the library, with only a few can be taken home. In this case, the low quantity of literary classics cannot be attributed to low interest in novel from public.
Last but not least, the assumption that conditions in local libraries stand for all conditions in waymarsh is ungrounded. if public library is the only method for the residents to obtain reading materials, then it is possible that people like to read novels more, supporting the misrepresentation in first study. On the other hand, it is likely that most people, who prefer classics, would buy these books from book store or online, so that they do not need to check these out anymore from the libraries. Unless we integrate reading materials from all medium, including online market, book stores and private and public libraries, we cannot fully draw the conclusion above.
To sum up, as it stands, the conclusion made by the author is based on incomplete or problematic assumptions that weaken the validity. To further strengthen his argument that respondents in the first study has misrepresented their reading preferences, the author should provide the evidences as follows: first, whether studies reading habits conducted by the University of waymarsh are representative; second, the availabilities of both kinds of books in all public library as well as library policies; third, whether people get reading materials more frequently from other methods or platforms.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 566 350
No. of Characters: 2959 1500
No. of Different Words: 241 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.878 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.228 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.897 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 217 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 158 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 116 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 78 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.789 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 17.025 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.842 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.537 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.138 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 347, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: While
...the public libraries was mystery novel. while it might be true that first study might...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 508, Rule ID: THE_SOME_DAY[1]
Message: Did you mean 'same'?
Suggestion: same
... fully evaluate the argument due to the some questionable stated and unstated assump...
^^^^
Line 3, column 959, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: One
...ond study is quite significant as well. one year total number of books checked out ...
^^^
Line 5, column 426, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: It
...to choose other types of books to read. it is also plausible that library classics...
^^
Line 7, column 123, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: If
...l conditions in waymarsh is ungrounded. if public library is the only method for t...
^^
Line 9, column 475, Rule ID: BOTH_AS_WELL_AS[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'and' after 'both'.
Suggestion: and
...th kinds of books in all public library as well as library policies; third, whether people...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, moreover, nonetheless, second, so, then, therefore, third, well, while, for example, in addition, such as, as well as, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 76.0 55.5748502994 137% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3033.0 2260.96107784 134% => OK
No of words: 566.0 441.139720559 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35865724382 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87757670434 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99269349192 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 262.0 204.123752495 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.462897526502 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 928.8 705.55239521 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 76.4096263693 57.8364921388 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.869565217 119.503703932 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6086956522 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.69565217391 5.70786347227 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.24102636098 0.218282227539 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0668853728309 0.0743258471296 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0704578819404 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148368233334 0.128457276422 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.055104194544 0.0628817314937 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.3799401198 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 98.500998004 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.