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 claim that the respondents in the first study of reading habits must misrepresented their reading preferences at first glance seems to be obvious deduction. After all, how can people like literary classics most be found to check out mystery novel most frequently in the second study. However, a careful examination would reveal how groundless this argument is, for it is based on unwarranted and overinterpreted assumptions.
The difference between the two study might be the result of sampling. The author doesn't tell more about how did the study sample. If the study didn't consider about, such as gender, age, education, and did not use the method of stratified sampling, it might be some bias in this result and fail to be representative of citizen in Waymarsh. For example, maybe most respondents are the older, female, high education group, who might love literary classics more in Waymarsh. We just don't know.
Additionally, the argument doesn't mention the demographics of the readers of the public libraries in Waymarsh. If this is disparate with that of respondents, it is intellegentible the two statistics is totally unmatched. Unless the author tenders more detail of these studies, we can not jump to the conclusion that the responses are wrong.
Finally, the relation between preference and action might sometimes not positive. We can not assume that people who like literary classics guarantee to check out this type of book most frequently. These people may already buy these books by themselves so that they don't need to find those in libraries.
To sum up, the argument is rife with holes and unwarranted assumptions in, between the two study, and human behavior. After perusing, I fundamentally consider this claim implausible.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-01 | mainulislamjoy | 60 | view |
| 2023-08-04 | diya | 58 | view |
| 2023-02-13 | spandan.sureja | 65 | view |
| 2022-09-13 | fangzr | 58 | view |
| 2021-10-19 | reeya kiran | 55 | view |
- No field of study can advance significantly unless it incorporates knowledge and experience from outside that field Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the posit 50
- When working on a project it s better for classmates or colleagues to communicate face to face than sending emails 75
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement To truly enjoy a vacation people should leave their mobile phone at home 73
- No field of study can advance significantly unless it incorporates knowledge and experience from outside that field Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the posit 50
- Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student s field of study Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be sure t 50
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 288 350
No. of Characters: 1427 1500
No. of Different Words: 157 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.12 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.955 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.87 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 94 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 74 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 56 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.441 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.304 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.074 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 81, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...t be the result of sampling. The author doesnt tell more about how did the study sampl...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 143, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... how did the study sample. If the study didnt consider about, such as gender, age, ed...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 479, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...rary classics more in Waymarsh. We just dont know. Additionally, the argument does...
^^^^
Line 3, column 28, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...dont know. Additionally, the argument doesnt mention the demographics of the readers...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 266, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... these books by themselves so that they dont need to find those in libraries. To su...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, may, second, so, after all, for example, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1475.0 2260.96107784 65% => OK
No of words: 283.0 441.139720559 64% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21201413428 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10153676581 4.56307096286 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94223458818 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 204.123752495 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.572438162544 0.468620217663 122% => OK
syllable_count: 449.1 705.55239521 64% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.9532813066 57.8364921388 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.1875 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6875 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.217638915927 0.218282227539 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0577009161175 0.0743258471296 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0613901774739 0.0701772020484 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0972040494555 0.128457276422 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0770886182091 0.0628817314937 123% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.64 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => 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.