A161 Model Essay

This argument concludes that in a certain study of reading habits Leeville citizens had misrepresented their reading habits. To justify the conclusion, the argument points out an apparent discrepancy between their representations and the results of a follow-up study showing that a different type of book is the one most frequently checked out from Leeville’s public libraries. However, the argument fails to account for several other possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy. First of all, the argument does not indicate how much time passed between the two studies. During a sufficiently long interim period the demographic makeup of Leeville might have changed, or the reading habit of the first study’s respondents might have changed. In other words, the longer the time between studies the less reliable the conclusion that respondents in the first study misrepresented their reading habits. Secondly, the argument fails to account for the possibility that the respondents in the first study constitute a different population than public library patrons. Admittedly, both groups are comprised of Leeville citizens. However, it is entirely possible that more highly educated citizens who frequent the University library rather than public libraries, or who purchase books rather than borrow them, are the ones who responded to the first study. However, it is entirely possible that more highly educated residents may go to the University libraries instead of the public libraries, or to buy the books not to borrow books, and these people are the ones who responded to the first study. Thirdly, the argument fails to account for the possibility that literary classics, the book type that the first study respondents indicated they preferred, are not readily available at Leeville’s public libraries — or at least not as readily available as mystery novels. Experience informs me that this is likely, because mystery novels are in greater supply and cheaper for libraries to acquire than literary classics. If this is the case, it provides an alternative explanation for the fact that more mystery novels than literary classics are checked out from Leeville’s public libraries. Finally, the reliability of the first study rests on its statistical integrity. The argument fails to indicate what portion of the people surveyed actually responded; the smaller this portion, the less reliable the results. Nor does the argument indicate how many people were surveyed, or whether the sample was representative of Leeville’s general population. Again, the smaller the sample, the less reliable the results. In conclusion, the assertion that respondents in the first study misrepresented their reading habits is untenable, in light of a variety of alternative explanations for the apparent discrepancy between the two studies. To strengthen the argument, its proponent must show that the respondents in the first study are representative of Leeville citizens generally, and that both groups are equally likely to check out books from Leeville’s public libraries. To better evaluate the argument, we would need to know the length of time between the two studies, and whether any significant demographic changes occurred during this time. We would also need to know the availability of literary classics compared to mystery novels at Leeville’s public libraries.