1006G[redemption]备考贴 by (BZR2915/小鸟--小鸟)--即使化成灰也要拼搏到底！

tunicateUID：2722773

提纲：
即便STUDY正确结论也不对
1.1before birth 指代时间不明，STUDY中为怀孕期，此处可能是怀孕之前
1.2同理 later life 是什么概念 （中年老年？）STUDY 中只能证明到TEENAGERS
STUDY中的漏洞
2.1实验样本有问题只找了奇怪的气味和声音下有反应的（可能在这种情况下都有反应）
2.2秋天有诸多因素产生不一定只是MELATONIN
2.3STUDY有断电N年之间可能发生了很多事情
STUDY的不确切同样推不出结论


In this argument the author concludes that increased levels of melatonin before birth is the main reason leads to the shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life by an imperfect study.This conclusion seems to be convincing ,at first sight,but further reflection reveals that the study neither constituting a logical statement in support nor proving a compelling evidence to make the argument sound and invulnerable.

Even though I concede that the study is strict and scientific ,the conclusion will also be troubled in two respects. (concededly, the study…比较好，一般客观句>主观句 ) First, the notion that before birth is vague and confusing. It is most likely that the time is before mothers conceive,which obviously change the notion in the study. Second, the conclusion unnecessarily extant the time that up to the teenager which proved by the study to a vague notion that a later life.It is not too much we understand the time is relating to a middle age. In short if the author can't exclude all these and other explanation, it is unfounded to reach the conclusion involved in the argument.

Furthermore,the study's process is not scientific which weakens the conclusion in the following respects. At first, the group of 25 infants is can't be the effective example for the study. It is most likely that the odor and the unusual voice are impacting on all the infants to make them distress.Because the study lack a contrast group ,it is reasonable to bring up such assumption.The second flaw that weaken the study is that the author assumes that the melatonin is the only factor that stimulated by autumn.Nevertheless,there is no guarantee that it is a necessarily case and it is possible that other hormone causes the fact. The third, even though the author could substantiate all the foregoing assumptions,his assumption that the shyness will continue to the teenager is unwarranted.While the study make a research to show that many of them are shyness when they are teenager, yet during these years lots of incidence may happen which is the real reason to stimulated these children to be shyness.In conclusion,under any scenario,adopting the study's proposal  might harm rather than benefit.

TO sum up,the conclusion lack credibility because the study cited by the argument does not lent a strong support to the analyse. Thus, if the author does not consider the factors that discussed above such like a precisely describe (总之名词动词之类还是要留意下滴~) to the conclusion and the correctness of the study ,it is reasonable to cast considerable doubts on this argument.

比第一篇文看得顺多了，可能是攻击要点更准确了，错字也纠过了的原因：>
结构很标准，但有个问题和上次差不多，结尾的模板化太明显了，如果改成To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the study cited above that concerns a group of 25 infants doesn’t lend a strong support to the analysis, for the mayor fails to certify the relation between infants’ sensibility to stimulation as well as unify the ambience in which they were brought up. The author also neglects other factors such as….. 后面保留就是了~重申原文还是必要的~

笔误是最最次要的问题，米有关系啦~

12# bzr2915

tunicateUID：2722773

23A recent sales study indicated that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent over the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants that specialize in seafood. Moreover, the majority of families in Bay City are two-income families, and a nationwide study has shown that such families eat significantly fewer home-cooked meals than they did a decade ago but at the same time express more concern about eating healthily. Therefore, a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood will be quite popular and profitable.

1\消费量与盈利没有直接因果
2\专营海鲜店优势不明
3\双收入家庭食品消费结构不明 群体性调查可能不适用特殊

The argument is not cogent in several【at least 3。。加上具体数目可能更好】 respects【这个respect我注意好多次了，是不是aspect更好些呀，你在哪看的模板？？】. First, there is no casual relationship between consumption and benefits. In addition, wether a specialized seafood restaurant has an advantage over a common one is open to the question. The argument also fails to make clear the details about two-income families' construction of food consumption. I will discuss all these logical flaws in turn.

The consumption of seafood dished has increase greatly can not indicated that the seafood market are beneficial by it. Common sense tells us one consumption are sold out in a larger amount the product tends to be cheaper than it was. For example, the computer, while it was expensive as just appear, which is a common equipment to the modern life for its accessible price and better quality which result from its large-scale production. And the consequence is that even though the computer's consumption soar up as time goes, the whole benefit for the market is in a balance. 【一般A里不举与原题无关的例子】In addition, the more consumption of seafood might be harmful to the restaurants' owners as the more seafood dishes the harder competition between the restaurants. Furthermore, even if there is a casual relationship between them, the recently study can not predict a positive future of the city's seafood market, it is easy affected by the factor such like government' policy, seafood resource, people's tendency and so on.

The second flaws that weakens the logic of this argument is that the assumption that the restaurants which specialized in seafood is better than the common ones, which lacks evidence. A reasonable deduction which based on the fact that there is no specialized restaurant in BC【汗。。文章里还是写全称好】 might be that as there is no experience to run such a restaurant the specialized ones might be fail to compete the common ones which have more often-come customers and higher service level.

Finally, even if the author substantiates all of the forgoing assumptions, his assumption that two-income families make the biggest consumption of seafood is unwarranted. There is no evidence to convince that the two-income families tend to eat seafood dishes rather than other nutrition food. Furthermore, the study was made by a national wide research, which is possible not typical for BC.【如果要更好的搭建让步关系，Nationwide Study应放前，Even it fits our local condition, double income doesn’t means bigger consumption】 People may have various eating habits in different region, in this case, BC' citizens might tend to cook at home rather than go out.

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed. The argument could be improved by pointing out the interest ratio of seafood market in recent years rather than the consumption and offering a compelling evidence to prove that a specialized restaurant are better than the common ones. It could also be improved by making a detailed survey about the local families' eating habits.【注意搜集一下说法：It can be improved//further strengthen//more logical//more sounded等等，换着使~~】

整体思路有点乱，让步关系没有很清楚。建议做一下这样的联系：先把所有的错找出来，挑最有代表性的三个左右，按逻辑顺序排列攻击~~【最近正在这样练，还是挺管用的，因为往往一篇文章n个错不可能完全攻击到的：>