[a习作temp] argument 38 第一篇习作，望拍。。。 [复制链接]

wwrechard
UID: 2564983

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 1
寄托币: 228
注册时间: 2008-10-28
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-2-11 01:05:37 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 wwrechard 于 2009-2-11 01:11 编辑

写了好长时间，好绝望啊。。。。希望大家帮忙看看吧。。。

aruement 38    An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism.

    According to the analysis in the passage, the author presents his recommendation that people use the Ichthaid as a good way to prevent colds and absenteeism, which, at first glance, is an extremely obvious conclusion. In order to render the argument more convincible, he cites a study report in nearby East Maria, focusing on the relationship between the frequency of local people visiting a doctor and the consumption of fish. Then with the subconscience that visiting a doctor is relevant to colds, the arguer thereby achieves his somehow reasonable conclusion. However, when we take all the reflections into consideration, several vital lacunas should be apparently figured out within the analysis' logical system, which almost diminishes its foundation of the statement.
   First of all, just as the author states in the passage, he attributes the cause of people visiting the doctor to colds. However, everyday experiences make us aware of that several other causes, for instance, injury or toxicosis, may be more regular reasons to be in hospital. To be specifically, because of the commonness of colds, most people may take the ignoring attitude towards it and just buy some ordinary medicine to settle down without visiting a doctor, which makes the statistics meaningless. That is to say, the author interposes a really weak cause-and-effect relationship between visiting a doctor and colds. Without ruling out the other possible causes, his conclusion that the cold should be to blame for the frequency of people visiting doctor is somewhat unsubstantial. Anyway, assuming that the frequency of people who go to see a doctor really represents the times people get cold, there is still no other obvious phenomenon indicating that fish is the right origin of the cold-killer. As a matter of fact, health results from a comprehensive effect of kinds of elements, such as whether people take sports efficiently, not just a single one. Hence, the author's view on fish consumption is also seems lack of power for his one-sided terms on the incidents.
   Secondly, despite the skepticism of the true relation between fish and cold, the arguer's recommendation also depends on what, in most circumstances, might be a ridiculous analogy between West Meria and East Meria. This comparison basically relies on the asumption that these two places, though distinguished apparently in the location, have the same geography. Nevertheless, many existing gaps are inevitable. For example, the climate, the air condition, and the body figures, etc, all have the possibility to prevent the same situation occurring in West Meria even though people there eat entirely the same fish, and these therefore have a strong impact on the author's flagging assumption and the final recommendation.
   Finally, the least but not the last, when the author mentions that people should use the Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, he implies specifically but brusquely that the really functional material that prevents people from cold is Ichthaid. As a commonsense, scientists can easily refine thousands of materials from fish, which, to some point, all have the qualification and possibility.
   As a summary, the conclusion drown by the author that people should use the Ichthaid as a good way to prevent colds and absenteeism is likely to be lacking in evidence. To strengthen its foundation, the arguer needs to provide more regard to the correct inner links between the phenomenons. Meanwhile, before having access to the accurate outcome, do not try recommending the product, for the cost of the purchase might lead to an undesirable waste in finance and this also relies on the further understanding of the whole.

Argument, 习作

相关帖子 Updated by 2024.11.23

回应
0

使用道具举报

onion85
UID: 2265325

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 82
注册时间: 2006-10-22
精华: 0
帖子: 11

沙发

发表于 2009-2-11 10:38:46 |只看该作者

开头略显啰嗦了，如果要复述题目中的内容的话，尽量用简单的一两句话解决。
第一个论点有问题，审题要仔细。题目中已经说了“ visit the doctor for the treatment of colds”。可以将第一个论点表述为每年因为感冒只去看一两次医生并不意味着这个地区的居民患感冒的次数比别的地方少。如果这点不成立的话就可以推翻吃鱼和预防感冒的关系了。
第二段的论证中有点问题，首先说了作者设想两个地方有相同的geography，然后说还是有些细微差别的。我觉得直接说作者忽略了两个地方的差异，例如什么什么，然后将这些差异是怎么会影响到最终结果的。
第三段，是“last but not the least”, 而且这个好像不与“Finally”同时使用的。

总体感觉，作者的语言表达不错（呵呵，虽然有些表达我看着不是很明白），但是在选择攻击点方面还有待加强。

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报