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 arguers 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 arguers 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 groups 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.

　　參考譯文

　　在一項由Leeville大學(xué)就Leeville市民閱讀習(xí)慣所作的研究中，大多數(shù)受訪對象稱,他們偏愛將文學(xué)名著作為其閱讀材料。但是，由相同的研究人員所作的一項跟蹤調(diào)查卻發(fā)現(xiàn)，每個公共圖書館外借得最頻繁的圖書均為志怪小說類。因此，我們可以得出這樣的結(jié)論，即第一項研究中的受訪對象沒能如實(shí)地描述出他們的閱讀習(xí)慣。

　　上述論斷基于由 Leeville大學(xué)對Leeville市民所從事的兩項互為獨(dú)立的調(diào)查。在前一項調(diào)查中，大多數(shù)受訪對象稱他們較為偏愛的閱讀材料是文學(xué)名著。由相同的研究人員所作的一項跟蹤調(diào)查則發(fā)現(xiàn)，志怪小說是Leeville市每個公共圖書館外借頻率最高的一類圖書。論述者便據(jù)此得出結(jié)論認(rèn)為，這樣看來，第一項研究中的受訪對象沒能如實(shí)地描述他們自己的閱讀習(xí)慣。這段論述沒能遵循事實(shí)，因而由于邏輯方面某些缺陷而無從令人置信。

　　首先，有可能是，對第一項調(diào)查作出問卷回答的公民，沒有一個人參加了第二項調(diào)查。從統(tǒng)計角度而言，完全有可能的情形是，第一項調(diào)查涵蓋了一個比 Leeville總?cè)丝谥兴嬖诘膩淼酶蟮奈膶W(xué)名著多數(shù)讀者群。第一項研究與其后對圖書館實(shí)際外借的書所作的那項研究，二者間的差異可能純粹是因為受訪對象對文學(xué)擁有全然不同的興趣，因此否定了論述者所謂第一組受訪對象沒有如實(shí)表述其所喜愛的閱讀材料的結(jié)論。

　　其次，兩項調(diào)查結(jié)果之間的差異或許可以歸諸于這樣一個原因，即Leeville市的公共圖書館內(nèi)缺乏文學(xué)名著。說得簡單一點(diǎn)，圖書館可能有數(shù)千冊志怪小說供外借但卻沒能收藏多少冊文學(xué)名著。Leeville市民實(shí)際上可能甚是偏愛閱讀文學(xué)名著，但公共圖書館就是沒有此類圖書外借供市民閱讀。另一個可能性是，Leeville公共圖書館限制文學(xué)名著的外借可能只將這類圖書當(dāng)作參考資料，只允許在館內(nèi)閱讀，不得外借。進(jìn)一步而言，也有可能是，無論Leeville公共圖書館藏有多少冊文學(xué)名著，市民們在過去已將它們悉數(shù)讀完，甚至讀過許多遍，因此，這些書便不再有人借閱。這些可能性也進(jìn)一步削弱了第一組受訪對象沒有如實(shí)表述其閱讀習(xí)慣的論點(diǎn)。

　　第三，對于文學(xué)名著這類書，人們往往購買來作為個人藏書，而不太傾向于從圖書館借閱。一個顯著的可能性是，Leeville市民購買文學(xué)名著來閱讀并隨后將它們收藏于家庭圖書館而不再去公共圖書館借閱。Leeville市民可能喜愛閱讀文學(xué)名著并因此購置它們作為個人藏書，因此只從圖書館借閱其他類型的閱讀材料，而不是去購買這些材料來永久地?fù)碛小Ｕ撌稣哧P(guān)于第一組受訪對象沒有如實(shí)表述其閱讀習(xí)慣的結(jié)論，由于這一可能性而遭到致命的削弱。

　　最后，這段論述沒有解釋這樣一種可能性，即調(diào)查樣本本身帶有缺陷。論述者沒有擺出任何資料表明到底有多少市民接受了調(diào)查，或所涉及的人口統(tǒng)計學(xué)方法是什么，或所涉及的具體地點(diǎn)。例如，較富有的人往往不太會光顧公共圖書館，但他們可能更喜愛閱讀文學(xué)名著。同樣地，光顧公共圖書館的人可能更喜愛閱讀志怪小說而不愛讀文學(xué)名著。如果不知道第一組受訪群體與光顧公共圖書館的群體之間的關(guān)系，就不可能就第一組群體的人的陳述的精確性得出一個恰當(dāng)?shù)慕Y(jié)論。

　　總而言之，論述者沒有能說服我們，因為他過于匆促地得出的結(jié)論無法經(jīng)得住推敲。若要使其論點(diǎn)更具分量，論述者需要尋找出進(jìn)一步的研究，排除掉其他那些會否定掉第一組受訪對象沒能如實(shí)地表述其閱讀習(xí)慣這一判斷的可能性。

　　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 arguers 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 arguers 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 groups 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.

　　參考譯文

　　在一項由Leeville大學(xué)就Leeville市民閱讀習(xí)慣所作的研究中，大多數(shù)受訪對象稱,他們偏愛將文學(xué)名著作為其閱讀材料。但是，由相同的研究人員所作的一項跟蹤調(diào)查卻發(fā)現(xiàn)，每個公共圖書館外借得最頻繁的圖書均為志怪小說類。因此，我們可以得出這樣的結(jié)論，即第一項研究中的受訪對象沒能如實(shí)地描述出他們的閱讀習(xí)慣。

　　上述論斷基于由 Leeville大學(xué)對Leeville市民所從事的兩項互為獨(dú)立的調(diào)查。在前一項調(diào)查中，大多數(shù)受訪對象稱他們較為偏愛的閱讀材料是文學(xué)名著。由相同的研究人員所作的一項跟蹤調(diào)查則發(fā)現(xiàn)，志怪小說是Leeville市每個公共圖書館外借頻率最高的一類圖書。論述者便據(jù)此得出結(jié)論認(rèn)為，這樣看來，第一項研究中的受訪對象沒能如實(shí)地描述他們自己的閱讀習(xí)慣。這段論述沒能遵循事實(shí)，因而由于邏輯方面某些缺陷而無從令人置信。

　　首先，有可能是，對第一項調(diào)查作出問卷回答的公民，沒有一個人參加了第二項調(diào)查。從統(tǒng)計角度而言，完全有可能的情形是，第一項調(diào)查涵蓋了一個比 Leeville總?cè)丝谥兴嬖诘膩淼酶蟮奈膶W(xué)名著多數(shù)讀者群。第一項研究與其后對圖書館實(shí)際外借的書所作的那項研究，二者間的差異可能純粹是因為受訪對象對文學(xué)擁有全然不同的興趣，因此否定了論述者所謂第一組受訪對象沒有如實(shí)表述其所喜愛的閱讀材料的結(jié)論。

　　其次，兩項調(diào)查結(jié)果之間的差異或許可以歸諸于這樣一個原因，即Leeville市的公共圖書館內(nèi)缺乏文學(xué)名著。說得簡單一點(diǎn)，圖書館可能有數(shù)千冊志怪小說供外借但卻沒能收藏多少冊文學(xué)名著。Leeville市民實(shí)際上可能甚是偏愛閱讀文學(xué)名著，但公共圖書館就是沒有此類圖書外借供市民閱讀。另一個可能性是，Leeville公共圖書館限制文學(xué)名著的外借可能只將這類圖書當(dāng)作參考資料，只允許在館內(nèi)閱讀，不得外借。進(jìn)一步而言，也有可能是，無論Leeville公共圖書館藏有多少冊文學(xué)名著，市民們在過去已將它們悉數(shù)讀完，甚至讀過許多遍，因此，這些書便不再有人借閱。這些可能性也進(jìn)一步削弱了第一組受訪對象沒有如實(shí)表述其閱讀習(xí)慣的論點(diǎn)。

　　第三，對于文學(xué)名著這類書，人們往往購買來作為個人藏書，而不太傾向于從圖書館借閱。一個顯著的可能性是，Leeville市民購買文學(xué)名著來閱讀并隨后將它們收藏于家庭圖書館而不再去公共圖書館借閱。Leeville市民可能喜愛閱讀文學(xué)名著并因此購置它們作為個人藏書，因此只從圖書館借閱其他類型的閱讀材料，而不是去購買這些材料來永久地?fù)碛小Ｕ撌稣哧P(guān)于第一組受訪對象沒有如實(shí)表述其閱讀習(xí)慣的結(jié)論，由于這一可能性而遭到致命的削弱。

　　最后，這段論述沒有解釋這樣一種可能性，即調(diào)查樣本本身帶有缺陷。論述者沒有擺出任何資料表明到底有多少市民接受了調(diào)查，或所涉及的人口統(tǒng)計學(xué)方法是什么，或所涉及的具體地點(diǎn)。例如，較富有的人往往不太會光顧公共圖書館，但他們可能更喜愛閱讀文學(xué)名著。同樣地，光顧公共圖書館的人可能更喜愛閱讀志怪小說而不愛讀文學(xué)名著。如果不知道第一組受訪群體與光顧公共圖書館的群體之間的關(guān)系，就不可能就第一組群體的人的陳述的精確性得出一個恰當(dāng)?shù)慕Y(jié)論。

　　總而言之，論述者沒有能說服我們，因為他過于匆促地得出的結(jié)論無法經(jīng)得住推敲。若要使其論點(diǎn)更具分量，論述者需要尋找出進(jìn)一步的研究，排除掉其他那些會否定掉第一組受訪對象沒能如實(shí)地表述其閱讀習(xí)慣這一判斷的可能性。