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.
Researchers found seemingly conflicting results when studying the reading habits of Waymarsh citizens. While survey respondents stated they preferred literary classics, public library users most frequently checked out a different genre—mystery novels. The author concludes that the survey respondents misrepresented their reading habits.
At first reading, this seems to be a logical assumption—library records are unlikely to misrepresent which library books are checked out, so it must be that survey respondents answered inaccurately. However, the author is building a case on the premise that the survey is representative of library users. The author fails to give evidence for any connection between the population of survey respondents and the population of library users. Perhaps if they survey was given at the libraries, we could assume the survey would be a representative sample, but we do not know any information about the circumstances of the survey.
Even if the survey was given at the libraries, there are many explanations for why the survey results would not correlate to the books checked out at the library. If citizens “prefer” a certain type of book, maybe they prefer it enough to own it themselves, and would thus not need to check it out at the library. Also, some literary classics are mystery novels, so there is overlap in the data that could be explored. Most importantly, we don’t know all the options in the survey. Maybe there were very general options, and mystery novels were not specifically included. We just don’t know if the survey included the same types of books on which data was gathered from the library check out records. More information is needed about the survey and the data gathered from library records in order to know if a case can be built against the survey respondents. It is thought provoking that the survey results didn’t line up with library user habits, but examination of survey and data collection methods is necessary before a strong argument can be made.
The author makes an assumption that the library check out records are representative of the population of citizens as a whole. This assumption is faulty, because citizens could still be reading books, or have “preferred” books, even without using the library. The author could strengthen his argument by determining if the population of library users is representative of the population of citizens as a whole. Demographic data showing the commonalities between the two populations could buttress his argument.
Not only is the author assuming the library sample is representative of the citizen population, he is assuming that the survey respondents are not representative. Depending on how the survey was administered, it could actually be more representative. If the survey was equally available to all citizens, it would be more representative of their interests than using data from only library users. The author could strengthen his argument by explaining why the library records are a better representation of citizen literary interest than the quite possibly more widely available survey.
The author is correct in thinking that something isn’t adding up here, but his quick assumption that survey respondents misrepresented themselves is without merit. Examining the reason for the different results would give a clearer picture of the true literary interest of the citizens, but to discount the first data simply because the second was different is not supported by logic. Additional information about how the survey was administered, and to whom, would provide insight into the situation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 630, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... about the circumstances of the survey. Even if the survey was given at the libr...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 525, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...opulations could buttress his argument. Not only is the author assuming the libr...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 590, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... possibly more widely available survey. The author is correct in thinking that s...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, still, then, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 39.0 19.6327345309 199% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3109.0 2260.96107784 138% => OK
No of words: 574.0 441.139720559 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41637630662 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89472135074 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20359211894 2.78398813304 115% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.412891986063 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 984.6 705.55239521 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.67365269461 478% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.5902272622 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.576923077 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0769230769 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.15384615385 5.70786347227 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 14.0 4.67664670659 299% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.111569753422 0.218282227539 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.041597215444 0.0743258471296 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0632202284792 0.0701772020484 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0831267311288 0.128457276422 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0972016861703 0.0628817314937 155% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => 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 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.