In this argument, the arguer concludes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. To support the conclusion, the arguer point out that a follow-up study shows that the Leeville citizens checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel, not the literary classics as Leeville respondents claimed before.This argument suffers from serveral critical fallacies. First of all, aruger fails to provided the details of the respondents. How the researchers found these respondents? The author assumes that the first respondents may respondented the whole Leeville citizens. In fact, with no solid evidence, this assumption is weak. Maybe, there are many dissimilarities between the respondents and the Leeville residents. In addition, the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that the most frequently checked out books may not be the type of book citizens preffered. It is possible that there are more mystery novels in these libraries in Leeville than other type of book. Thus it has much more probabilits to be checked out. Finally, the argument omits serveral other concerns that should be addressed. For example, which group of people lived nearby the public libraries, how long time the next study continue. To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to prove that the two studies has a utterly link. To solidify the argument, the arguer wolud have to provide more evidence concering about the details in these two studies.