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 o

In this argument, the author presents two studies concerning reading habits and makes a conclusion that respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits based on the contradictory results of the two studies. Nonetheless, he fails to provide more convincing evidence to support his assertion, which severely undermines its validity.

As the author mentions, in the first study, respondents’ reply indicates the preference of literary classics in Waymarsh citizens. He apparently premises there to be no explanation for the unreliability of the study other than their misrepresentation of reading habits. Yet the probability of a low response rate should not be precluded. For example, these respondents frankly expressed their preference while some individuals with no passion of reading literary classics refuse to accept the inquiry. In this condition, a prediction of the people’s preference for literary classics based on a report with low response rate would be unwarranted. Therefore more details about the response of survey are required to guarantee its authenticity.

Even though both the response rate and answers are unbiased in the first study, the phenomenon found by the second study that the mystery novel was most frequently checked out of public libraries in Waymarsh can hardly imply citizens’ preference of such novels. The author obviously assumes that there is definite relevance between borrowing a book and being fond of it. Nevertheless, he should not preclude the case that readers had bought literary classics they preferred and borrow less interesting books. Then books most frequently checked out are contrarily not favored. Accordingly, the author needs to give more statistics about book sales in order to illustrate the veritable reading habits of Waymarsh citizens.

Even if individuals borrow books because of their preference, the author should not rush to the assertion that the incompatible results of the two studies indicate certain problem during the survey. He clearly supposes that the two studies are comparable, which is unfounded in some circumstances. For instance, people who accepted the survey are mainly university students and faculties with stronger interest in classics while those who checked out books from public libraries are mostly common citizens preferring best-sellers. In this case, the distinct samples determine the incomparability of their results. Thus more details concerning the sample and circumstance of the two studies should be provided to ensure that their results are comparable.

Conclusively, the author presents two studies reflecting reading habits with different results and makes a conclusion that respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. Nevertheless, he needs to provide more cogent evidence to give rise to the authenticity of his assertion.