Argument 35 首次限时，欢迎猛拍

leolee22UID: 2364632

时间果然不够用啊……
用时：35m； 字数：449
------------------
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."
------------------

正文

In this summary the author concludes that the number of headaches suffered by average citizen of Mentia will continue to decline. To justify this argument, the author show me some evidence that many foods are naturally rich in salicylates(S), which are similar to aspirin, a medicine used to treat headache. Moreover, the author cites a twenty – year study, amid which the average number of headaches is reported declining. However, close scrutiny of the argument reveals many logical and statistic problems that will without doubt render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the author’s argument relies on a hasty assumption that S is the very factor leading to the decline of the number of headaches. However, no certain proof has been shown to confirm this connection. There is a high possibility that it’s some other chemicals that added in foods curing the headaches, but not S. And it’s also possible that even though S is curing the headaches, the consequence is not apparent enough for a survey to check out.

Even if the connection between the use of S and decline of headache is confirmed, the author fails to show the details of the twenty-year study to prove it representative. First, the number of people who has taken the survey is not given. Perhaps the sample is too small to be considered valid. Furthermore, the situation of these sample people is also unknown. It’s possible that the symptom of the headache of the people is not severe enough, and that it’s some other factors resulting in the recovery of their headache, even that it’s cure all by themselves.

Even if the two factors that will lead to the failure of the argument are both proved, the author still cannot prove that the trend of using S as preservative will continue. It’s totally possible that all the companies tend to give up using S as preservative for some reasons, like recent discovery or governmental restricts. Or perhaps, there will be some other chemicals found to be more efficient than S as preservative, which will without doubt result in the decline of using S.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stand in many facets. Firstly, to strengthen the argument, the author must show me more evidence to prove that it is the S which added as preservative that cure people’s headache, not other chemicals. Secondly, to convince me, the author also have to show more details about the twenty – year study to prove it representative. Finally, the author also have to give adequate evidence to show that the tendency of using S as preservatives will continue. Without ruling out all the other possibilities, the argument will never convince me.

leolee22UID: 2364632

自顶一下