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.
The author argues that the reading preferences of the people in the two studies have discrepancies because the interviews were misleading. However, the argument seems unconvincing in-depth analysis as several logical fallacies and a hasty generalization appear in this one.
To begin with, the data about the researches and the studies are very limited. The text lacks in strong analytical data and cross-referencing. There is no “bloody quantification”. How many people took part in the studies, what was their age, profession, education? For example, middle-aged and elderly people prefer classical literature while teenagers are more prone to reading fantasy and other entertaining books. The well-educated population also differs from simply educated by their habits.
The next lacuna is that the argument lacks the indicated periods when similar studies were conducted. One of them could have been done 30 years ago, while the other quite recently. Tastes change and it is a rookie mistake to compare studies from different times. 30 years ago, there was no internet and people read predominantly paper books. In addition, paper books were simply cheaper. Today in the technological century, the majority have adapted e-books, so the number of people going to libraries has decreased greatly.
In addition, if the debater wants to explore the readers of Waymarsh who attended public libraries it is necessary to present the recordings from the library, which would present people's preferences in reading. There is a hasty generalization problem because the author tries to extrapolate two small and possibly unreliable studies on all the citizens of Waymarsh.
To make this argument more reasonable it is recommended to provide statistical data and evidence-based comparisons of both studies/surveys, to indicate names and professions of the researchers and take all the points mentioned above into account.
Finally, it is obvious that the conclusion drawn by the writer is very cursory and does not have a proven foundation.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 315 350
No. of Characters: 1678 1500
No. of Different Words: 189 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.213 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.327 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.939 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 104 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 62 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.029 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.285 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.555 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.047 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, so, well, while, for example, in addition, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 12.9520958084 15% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 55.5748502994 65% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1756.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 314.0 441.139720559 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.5923566879 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17657080085 2.78398813304 114% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.601910828025 0.468620217663 128% => OK
syllable_count: 550.8 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.8491038503 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.5555555556 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4444444444 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.66666666667 5.70786347227 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.158760623929 0.218282227539 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0430713038412 0.0743258471296 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.046506127334 0.0701772020484 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0729910873948 0.128457276422 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0415819354244 0.0628817314937 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 48.3550499002 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.85 12.5979740519 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.36 8.32208582834 112% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.