求批作文 Argument (salicylate/headache/Mentia) ~~~NO MERCY PLEASE!!!~~~
Argument:35.The following appeared in the summary of a study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia. "Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates, for the past several decades food-processing companies have also been adding salicylates to foods as preservatives. This rise in the commercial use of salicylates has been found to correlate with a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in our twenty-year study. Recently, food-processing companies have found that salicylates can also be used as flavor additives for foods. With this new use for salicylates, we can expect a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia."
Response:
The author asserts that they would expect a continued reduction in the number of headache sufferers in Mentia, but this assertion has insufficient evidence to support. Though certain facts about the property of the drug being used in the study, and how such drug being used by commercial companies in the food, the final conclusion is is still not that much well supported for some unstated assumptions remain unproven.
First, the author supports the study with a citation that the drug of interest, Salicylate, belongs to the same family of chemicals as aspirin, and because aspirin is effective in treating headaches, the author imply that the other family member, Salicylate, can be regarded as having same effect. The underlaying assumption in this argument is that drug family is grouped together by medicinal efficacy. However, such information is not provided and there is no clear evidence that Salicylate can have exactly same effect for treating head pain. We all know that aspirin is a general pain reliever. Even if its derivate drug, Salicylate can have similar efficacy as aspirin, it is possible that Salicylate acts on different tissues other than brain and can have a different drug profile with toxicity counteracting its curative effect. Until such information can be adequately stated, no one can be certain whether the reduction in the number of headache suffers in Mentia is related to the effect of Salicylate.
To further support the claim, the author points out that since food-processing companies had been adding salicylates to foods as preservatives in the past few decades, the increase in its use as food preservative can be correlated the decrease in head pain sufferers reported in their twenty-year study. The implication the author hints here is that less people reporting headache is entirely due to the use of salicylate that must had cured the headache of those people in the study who used to report pain. Regardless of the medicinal effect of salicylate on headache, there are several flawed assumptions in such implicit statement. First, it is assumed that salicylate can still retain its therapeutic effect on headache suffers after being added and mixed with food with dilution factor same as a preservative. Second, it also assume that people included in the study regularly consume the food containing salicylate as a preservative. However, without such information, it is equally likely that the patients with headache had taken other form of medication to relief their symptom. With a more comprehensive analysis of the patient profiles, these questions can then be answered with confident.
Finally, the recent discovery of salicylate as a suitable flavour additives for foods can not be used as absolute indicator of a continued steady declined in the number of headaches suffered by residents in Mentia in the future. There are no indication that any food company will take advantage of this discovery and start to use salicylate in their product soon. Also, we do no know what kind of food is suitable for adding salicylate as favour additives, and whether these particular food is accessible to residents in Mentia, especially those one having headache, and they will take interest in purchasing one of them regularly as part of their daily food intake. Unless we are certain with these information, it would be hasty to arrive the conclusion with any certainty.
To conclude, a better evaluation on the author’s claim requires more information regarding the actual therapeutic effect of salicylate on the headache symptom, and patient profiles revealing whether they had been consuming food containing salicylate preservative. The questions on whether food-companies will make use of new discovery of salicylate as flavour additives and patients in Mentia will start to adopt their product as their daily food intake, will also be helpful to establish the claim. 楼主，你好！
首先我认为需要把instruction贴上，官方给的题号是26和28，分别是specific evidence 和 assumptions 类别，当然写法有所不同（比如specific evidence 与以往大幅度攻击作者漏洞不同，强调需要补充哪些逻辑链条可以strengthen or weaken ，加强也是有可能的），但逻辑分析大致还是相同的。
楼主写的挺好的，本人作了如下逻辑分析：
结论：S的商业用途增加导致了headache的稳定下降 （有因果关系）
assumptions:
1. s 是有治疗功效的
2. headache的民众吸收了s
3. s 的功效是体现在商业使用（如preservatives 或者additives）的增加这一变化
4. 有强因果关系，可能是环境改善、生活方式变迁才是主要原因
可以攻击：首先s 不一定有功效，楼主第二段已经论述；
其次，即使有功效可能headache 的人不喜欢，所以没有吸收；
即使有功效且喜欢吃，不一定是通过 p或a （何况a不一定增加，只是计划中），因为p或者 a 的含量很小，而“many foods are naturally rich in salicylates”，有可能是民众对这些food 吸收更多
至于最后一点我也不是很确定，就是说还有他因才是主要原因作者需要排除或者控制变量结果才可靠。
希望和楼主多多交流哈~{:1_1:}
贺雅稚 发表于 2015-1-16 16:17 static/image/common/back.gif
楼主，你好！
首先我认为需要把instruction贴上，官方给的题号是26和28，分别是specific evidence 和 assu ...
谢谢回复，提纲分析很全，建议很好(我一般不看instruction的:L)。
“many foods are naturally rich in salicylates” 我也漏读了，确实可以用做攻击论述 :handshake {:t_0032:}
页:
[1]