1010G【fish】argument35

azure9UID: 2789030

35The 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."

请于6月07日晚23点前提交作业。并把作业word文档发给互改的组员
1--->2指，1帮2改，2的作文给1改

第一次互改顺序：
1--->11
2--->10
10-->1
11-->2

第一次自改文上交的时间是：6月08日晚23点

第二次互改的顺序：
1--->10
2--->11
10-->2
11-->1




第二次自改文的上交时间是：6月10日晚23点

azure9UID: 2789030

The argument concludes that the rising use of salicylates resulted the decline number of headaches of participants. Then the new use of salicylates as flavor additives can lead a continued decline in the number of people with headache in Mentia. I find this the argument unconvincing for several reasons.

To begin with, the author assumes the rise in the commercial use of salicylate has related to the decline in number of headache sufferers in a study. Yet, no evidence is offered to substantiate this assumption. First, the argument fails to show that the twenty-year study which the author cite to support his assumption has the coincidence in time with the period of rising use in salicylates. This factor alone can overturn the assumption. Even if the two events happened in the same period, it still can not build the correlation between the rising use of salicylates and declining of headaches sufferers, for there is no evidence shows that the participants with headache in the study were taking the food added with salicylates. And also fail to rule out other alternative factors that may reduce the number of people with headache. There is possibility that the climate changed during the last twenty years, and the change could be benefit to the headache. Lacking of the evidence above, the author's assuming causal relationship between the rise of using salicylates and decline of headache sufferers based on the study can not be found.

The argument also conclude unfairly that the new use for salicylates as flavor additives for foods can lead a continued decline in the number of people with headache in Mentia. It is based on the assumption of the causal relationship between the rise of using salicylates and decline of number of people with headache in a study. And even if the assumption can be found which can not, it is still unreasonable to draw any conclusions about the function of salicylates as the flavor additives for foods is to reduce the number of headaches suffered by people. There is possibility that the combination of salicylates and foods would have other side-effort and lose its function of treating headaches. So it would do fail to treat people and even do harm to them. It is also possible that the foods added with the salicylates as flavor are not usually eat by people. So, its function of treating headache works less.

And even if the salicylates added in foods as flavor additives can be effective for treating headache, it still can not concluded that this new use for salicylates can be expect to reduce the number of headaches suffered by the people in Mentia. What if the people in Mentia do not eat the foods with salicylates in, there is no chance for salicylates to work. And there is possibility that the water The citizen of Mentia drink can weaken the effort of salicylates. If so, the salicylates can not function as well. So it is unilateral for author to reach his conclusion.

In sum, the argument suffers from many logical flaws. To support his conclusion, the author needs to provide more specific evidence to prove the causal relationship between the study he cites and the function of salicylates.

azure9UID: 2789030

In this argument, the author summarizes a study which concludes that the commercial use of(我不知道是不是我自己糾結的問題，我覺得這裡根據題目來看應該是rise in commerical use...) salicylates(I use SAL instead) results in a steady decrease in the average number of headaches in twenty years. Although there are several fallacies in this study, the author hasty recons that further using of SAL will lead to a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia. The argument seems to have some truth is the first glance, however, further scrutiny reveals it suffers from several fallacies discussed below.

First of all, the author fails to persuade us that the study was conducted in a scientific way in this argument. For one thing, the author omits the information of the participants. How many participants involved in? The larger of the size of the sample, the less likely the differences arise solely from random fluctuations. What is the health condition of participant? Healthy condition could be an important factor affecting headaches. Are they chosen randomly or according to a specific standard? The specific standard also needs to be taken in to consideration for result analysis. For another, the author fails to provide the information about the relationship between participants' diet and foods adding SAL. There is a possibility that some participate rarely eat this kind of food. In that case, there is no relationship between foods adding SAL and headache releasing.
这段些study的样本有问题，给出了几个可能性，但是看起来比较乱，缺乏一定的条理性，有想起一点说一点的感觉。前面先用反问的形式列举了几个可能性，在这种列举方式之后又突然给出最后两个的分析，但分析的也不是很具体。然后又特别具体的分析了事物摄取问题的这个可能性，这样结构上的条理就比较差一点。主要是因为可能性提出的方式很散，就没有整体性，读着就乱了。
小建议是，要么舍去最后两个用反问提出的可能性的分析，就用平行的一串反问句来说。要么舍去前面一串反问，集中笔墨写后面两个，分析的尽量具体一些。

Secondly, the author fails to demonstrate the cause and effect(这里不知道可不可以这样说，用词组来形容realtionship，我一般是用causal，不过我也不懂，如果小谦确定这样写没错麻烦告诉我一声，就顺便学习了) relationship between foods adding SAL and headache releasing. Except the omission of how the participants involve with the foods adding SAL, the author fails to rule out the other causing factors of headache releasing. With the development of modern society, novel drugs come out and new clinic methods are created. Do these participants use other drugs or meditational methods to cure their headache?(我觉得这里用participants来说明其他因素影响治疗效果的可能性和前面重复了，点提的没有错，就是忽略了其他可能的情况，但是这种其他情况不应该是同种治理方式的替代效果，而应该是比如天气，饮食，心情等的其他因素。如果是提其他治理方式可能的替代就直接没有可比性了，因为我们是在说SAL这个药品的作用。影响它效果的其他因素不应该是来自其他的药品或治疗手段) In additon, the side effect of SAL needs to be taken into considerations, too. If SAL harm normal human organs or metabolisms, we should seriously concern about the commercial use of SAL. (这里我觉得有一点问题，因为作者并没有提说应该要增加它的商业用途，只是说最近增加的商业用途导致了...，反駁的點應該在導致的這個問題上，已經它的這個推理過程。我是這樣的理解，不知道小謙怎么想)

Lastly, even assuming the study is correct; it is unwarranted to apply it to the citizen of Mentia. Because the author do not mention where the participants come from, we could not directly apply the result of this study into a specific area(学习了), Mentia. Unless, the participants are randomly choosen from Mentia, the recon is effective.

All in all, the study cited by this argument suffers from several fallacies. To substantiate it, the author needs to show us a scientific way to choose samples and conduct this research. Otherwise, the statement is untenable.

凝羽欲翔UID: 2733350

In the argument, the author recommends that using salicylates as flavor additives will be a great help to the decline in the number of headaches. To justify this claim, the author cites a correlation, found recently, between the use of salicylates as food preservatives and the steady decline in the number of headaches in a twenty-year study. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

The major problem that may shake the conclusion is the little information about the twenty-year study of the effectiveness of salicylates using as food preservatives to reduce headache. What are the participants composed of? Only the young, the old or just children? Do they come from different cities? Whether they share similar eating habits? How about the sample size? Or most importantly, do they often take the food with salicylates as preservatives? These factors should be taken into account in the evaluation of the effectiveness of salicylates and revealed to the public when it shows the result of the research; otherwise, we have no idea if the conclusion is reasonable. However, the arguer fails to do so.

Secondly, whether salicylates would act rather the same when it seasons the food as when it is used as food preservatives, is still unknown to all. It is a common sense that even the same substance will have different chemical reactions though the temperature or the situation changes a little. The same goes for salicylates. The dosage, reaction condition, or a mix of other substances added in the process of making flavor additives, do have a great influence on salicylates itself, so that it may cause a bias of the efficacy to relieve headache. Furthermore, as we all know, aspirin is not the one that receives warm welcome from all people. Some have an allergy to it. If salicylates belongs to the same chemical family as aspirin, we doubt that if it shares the same character, even if the argument doesn’t reflect any case about allergy when using salicylates as preservatives. From this angle, the arguer’s recommendation of taking salicylates as flavor additives would most probably turn out to be ineffective and misleading.

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to describe the research environment with more detailed information. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the recommendation until the arguer can show us more concrete evidence that little side-effect will have when using salicylates as flavor additives and it does help to achieve our goal. Otherwise, the arguer is simple begging the question throughout the argument.

凝羽欲翔UID: 2733350

2

lty900301UID: 2715509

1

lty900301UID: 2715509

2

谦行天下UID: 2797557

In this argument, the author summarizes a study which concludes that the commercial use of salicylates(I use SAL instead) results in a steady decrease in the average number of headaches in twenty years. Although there are several fallacies in this study, the author hasty recons that further using of SAL will lead to a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia. The argument seems to have some truth is the first glance, however, further scrutiny reveals it suffers from several fallacies discussed below.

First of all, the author fails to persuade us that the study was conducted in a scientific way in this argument. For one thing, the author omits the information of the participants. How many participants involved in? The larger of the size of the sample, the less likely the differences arise solely from random fluctuations. What is the health condition of participant? Healthy condition could be an important factor affecting headaches. Are they chosen randomly or according to a specific standard? The specific standard also needs to be taken in to consideration for result analysis. For another, the author fails to provide the information about the relationship between participants' diet and foods adding SAL. There is a possibility that some participate rarely eat this kind of food. In that case, there is no relationship between foods adding SAL and headache releasing.

Secondly, the author fails to demonstrate the cause and effect relationship between foods adding SAL and headache releasing. Except the omission of how the participants involve with the foods adding SAL, the author fails to rule out the other causing factors of headache releasing. With the development of modern society, novel drugs come out and new clinic methods are created. Do these participants use other drugs or meditational methods to cure their headache? In additon, the side effect of SAL needs to be taken into considerations, too. If SAL harm normal human organs or metabolisms, we should seriously concern about the commercial use of SAL.

Lastly, even assuming the study is correct; it is unwarranted to apply it to the citizen of Mentia. Because the author do not mention where the participants come from, we could not directly apply the result of this study into a specific area, Mentia. Unless, the participants are randomly choosen from Mentia, the recon is effective.

All in all, the study cited by this argument suffers from several fallacies. To substantiate it, the author needs to show us a scientific way to choose samples and conduct this research. Otherwise, the statement is untenable.

======================第一次自改文===============
In this argument, the author summarizes a study which concludes that the rise in commerical use of salicylates(I use SAL instead) results in a steady decrease in the average number of headaches in twenty years. Although there are several fallacies in this study, the author hasty concludes that further using of SAL will lead to a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia. The argument seems to have some truth is the first glance, however, further scrutiny reveals it suffers from several fallacies discussed below.

First of all, the author omits the background information of the participants. Firstly, how many participants involved in? The larger of the size of the sample, the less likely the differences arise solely from random fluctuations, which share the same principle with scientists test the effect of a new drug. Before the drug are allowed to use in clinic, thousands of hundreds of volunteers needs to be observed after taking this drug. Secondly, what is the health condition of participants? Healthy condition could be an important factor affecting headaches. Do the participants have a good health which allows them recover fast after doing some exercise or using some drugs? Or, do they are in a bad health condition who are susceptible to some other diseases. Without taken the background condition of the participants into consideration, the author’s statement is less persuasive.

Secondly, the author fails to demonstrate the foods adding SAL causes headache releasing. For one thing, the author fails to provide the information about the relationship between foods adding SAL and participants' diet. There is a possibility that some participate rarely eat this kind of food. In that case, there is no relationship between foods adding SAL and headache releasing. For another, except the omission of how the participants involve with the foods adding SAL, the author fails to rule out the other causing factors of headache releasing. The changes in people’s diet, weather, and living habit would all contribute to headache releasing. And with the development of modern society, novel drugs come out and new clinic methods are created. Do these participants use other drugs or meditational methods to cure their headache?

After all, the side effect of SAL needs to be taken into considerations, too. If SAL harms normal human organs or metabolisms, we should seriously concern about the commercial use of SAL. If SAL have any serious side effect, its effect on headache curing is meaningless.
Even assuming the study is scientific; it is unwarranted to apply it to the citizen of Mentia. Because the author do not mention where the participants come from, we could not directly apply the result of this study into a specific area, Mentia. Unless, the participants are randomly choosen from Mentia, the recon is effective.

All in all, the study cited by this argument suffers from several fallacies. To substantiate it, the author needs to show us a scientific way to choose samples and conduct this research. Otherwise, the statement is untenable.

To 小c
cause and effect relationship我不确定,所以我改了。。。。
大刀阔斧的改，希望这样好一点。

谦行天下UID: 2797557

改小凝：
In the argument, the author recommends that using salicylates as flavor additives will be a great help to the decline in the number of headaches. To justify this claim, the author cites a correlation, found recently, between the use of salicylates as food preservatives and the steady decline in the number of headaches in a twenty-year study. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

The major problem that may shake the conclusion is the little information about the twenty-year study of the effectiveness of salicylates using as food preservatives to reduce headache. What are the participants composed of? Only the young, the old or just children? Do they come from different cities? Whether they share similar eating habits? How about the sample size? Or most importantly, do they often take the food with salicylates as preservatives? These factors should be taken into account in the evaluation of the effectiveness of salicylates and revealed to the public when it shows the result of the research; otherwise, we have no idea if the conclusion is reasonable. However, the arguer fails to do so.

Secondly, whether salicylates would act rather the same when it seasons the food as when it is used as food preservatives, is still unknown to all. It is a common sense that even the same substance will have different chemical reactions though the temperature or the situation changes a little. The same goes for salicylates. The dosage, reaction condition, or a mix of other substances added in the process of making flavor additives, do have a great influence on salicylates itself, so that it may cause a bias of the efficacy to relieve headache. 【我认为这后面的内容可以自成一段，因为与前面的中心句关系不太】Furthermore, as we all know, aspirin is not the one that receives warm welcome from all people. Some have an allergy to it. If salicylates belongs to the same chemical family as aspirin, we doubt that if it shares the same character, even if the argument doesn’t reflect any case about allergy when using salicylates as preservatives. From this angle, the arguer’s recommendation of taking salicylates as flavor additives would most probably turn out to be ineffective and misleading.

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to describe the research environment with more detailed information. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the recommendation until the arguer can show us more concrete evidence that little side-effect will have when using salicylates as flavor additives and it does help to achieve our goal. Otherwise, the arguer is simple begging the question【回避事实】 throughout the argument.

我想，还有一个错误是“别有他因”，医疗水平的升高，人们保健意识的加强。
小凝，你的改写很到位~~

梦想在路上UID: 2812986

晚交了，对帮我改作业的同学说声抱歉，让你久等了~~
In the argument, the author concludes that the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia will keep on declining by the reason of new use for salicylates. To support the conclusion, the author cites a twenty-year study about average number of headaches reported by participants. Close scrutiny of the facts, however, the argument suffers several critical flaws.

First, the mere fact that salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin does not indicate that they have the same function of treating headaches as aspirin does. Although salicylates and aspirin have the same chemical elements, there is no guaranteed that they are similar enough at every respect and are indeed comparable. Common sense informs us that the differences between chemical medicines with similar elements or constructions are very large. It is entirely possible that using salicylates might cause certain side-effects on human body rather than heal headaches. Or possibly the only function of salicylates is to be used as preservatives, otherwise why aspirin cannot be instead by them in medical treatment.

Next, the author hastily assumes that the increasingly commercial use of salicylates that resulted in a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in the past twenty years. The author only points out that the increased in using salicylates and declined in headaches occured during the same period, yet we all know that merely a coincidence of two events could not sufficiently demonstrate a causal relationship between them. A lot of other factors must be taken into consideration, such as changing in environment, dietary, whole economic conditions and so forth. Perhaps the developed medical care, improved environmental condition, healthier dietary and regularly living style that really lead to less number of headaches.

Finally, even if salicylates actually can help caring headaches, the author's assertion that the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia will be constantly declining is still unwarranted. Since headaches may be caused by many kinds of factors, which might include deterioration of environment, increasing work pressure, faster living tempo and so on. As we all know that with the intense competition in modern society, the youngster have more work tasks and less leisure time per day, which more easily result in headaches. Or perhaps the growing air pollution could also cause more citizen suffered by headaches.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strength the conclusion, the author should provide more relative researches about salicylates in the actual function of treating headaches. To better assess the argument, I want to study more research about other factors which can also decrease the number of headaches.

梦想在路上UID: 2812986

改 01小C
小C，对不起啊，没及时给你改~~
The argument concludes that the rising use of salicylates resulted the decline number of headaches of participants. Then the new use of salicylates as flavor additives can lead a continued decline in the number of people with headache in Mentia. I find this the argument unconvincing for several reasons.
To begin with, the author assumes the rise in the commercial use of salicylate has related to the decline in number of headache sufferers in a study. Yet, no evidence is offered to substantiate this assumption. First, the argument fails to show that the twenty-year study which the author cite to support his assumption has the coincidence in time with the period of rising use in salicylates. This factor alone can overturn the assumption. Even if the two events happened in the same period, it still can not build the correlation between the rising use of salicylates and declining of headaches sufferers, for there is no evidence shows that the participants with headache in the study were taking the food added with salicylates. And also fail to rule out other alternative factors that may reduce the number of people with headache.【这句缺少个主语】 There is possibility that the climate changed during the last twenty years, and the change could be benefit to the headache【有利于头痛？减少头痛吧！】. Lacking of the evidence above, the author's assuming causal relationship between the rise of using salicylates and decline of headache sufferers based on the study can not be found.
//S的使用与头痛减少无关。
The argument also conclude unfairly that the new use for salicylates as flavor additives for foods can lead a continued decline in the number of people with headache in Mentia. It is based on the assumption of the causal relationship between the rise of using salicylates and decline of number of people with headache in a study. And even if the assumption can be found which can not,【这句话没看懂，求解？】 it is still unreasonable to draw any conclusions about the function of salicylates as the flavor additives for foods is to reduce the number of headaches suffered by people. There is possibility that the combination of salicylates and foods would have other side-effort【side-effect】 and lose its function of treating headaches. So it would do fail to treat people and even do harm to them. It is also possible that the foods added with the salicylates as flavor are not usually eat【eaten】 by people. So, its function of treating headache works less.
//S的新功用不会引起头痛的持续下降。
And even if the salicylates added in foods as flavor additives can be effective for treating headache, it still can not concluded【conclude】 that this new use for salicylates can be expect to reduce the number of headaches suffered by the people in Mentia. What if the people in Mentia do not eat the foods with salicylates in, there is no chance for salicylates to work.【这个可能性在上一段中最后已经说过，还是我理解有偏差？】 And there is possibility that the water The【the】 citizen of Mentia drink can weaken the effort of salicylates. If so, the salicylates can not function as well. So it is unilateral for author to reach his conclusion.
//S能有利于治疗头痛也不见得会减少头痛人数。
In sum, the argument suffers from many logical flaws. To support his conclusion, the author needs to provide more specific evidence to prove the causal relationship between the study he cites and the function of salicylates.

总结：再次改小C的阿狗，进步很明显，提高的很快，感觉已经有了自己的套路，好棒！

agnes2010UID: 2794922

请假两天 周三补~

agnes2010UID: 2794922

请假两天 周三补~