argument80~限时完成~还有三天考试~给点建设性意见~斑竹空的话帮忙拍拍~

wt_2005UID: 2558268

TOPIC: ARGUMENT80 - The following appeared as an editorial in a health magazine.

"Clormium 5 is an odorless, tasteless, and generally harmless industrial by-product that can enter the water supply. A preliminary study has linked cooking with water containing clormium 5 to an increased incidence of allergies and skin rashes. Tests of the drinking water in several areas have revealed the presence of clormium 5. Although it is possible to remove clormium 5 from water, the costs of routine testing and purification are higher than many communities can afford. Therefore, in order to prevent allergies and skin rashes, communities that cannot afford to rid their drinking water of clormium 5 should replace drinking fountains in public buildings, such as schools and libraries, with bottled-water coolers."
WORDS: 397          TIME: 00:28:25          DATE: 2008-11-6 19:56:41

Before the implementation the recommendation in the argument above, there are several evidence which need to be reexamined in some other aspects, as discussed below.

To begin with, the result of study is open to doubt. Firstly, the argument above provide no detail or information concerning how many people participate the study and how they are selected. Common sense tells us that the smaller the sample size is, the less reliable and credible the result of study will be. Perhaps, only 100 people participate the study, if this is the case, this small sample size is insufficient and imprecise to draw any conclusion. Also due to lacking of information concerning how people are selected to participate the study, we cannot conclude whether the result of study is representative enough. Secondly, the study overlooks other factors which can lead to allergies and skin rashes. Perhaps, due to eating some unclean food, some of the participants get allergies and skin rashes. If this is the case, the conclusion renders its incredibility due to ignore other factors which can lead the same symptoms, such as skin rashes.

In addition, even if the result of the study is substantiated, it does not follow that presence of clormium 5 will definitely cause allergies and skin rashes. Perhaps, the amount of clormium 5 in the drinking water is little so that it is insufficient to cause people sick. Perhaps, some other materials exist in the drinking water too, which prohibit the effect of clormium 5 to cause people sick. Without ruling out all these possibilities above, the conclusion of argument is groundless to me.

Last not the least, even if the foregoing assumptions are all substantiated, it does not follow that replacing drinking fountains in public buildings with bottled-water coolers will be the best solution. The argument overlooks other methods to deal with drinking water containing clormium 5, which maybe more economical and effective. Perhaps, adding some medicines into the water can offset the effects of clormium 5. Further, the argument does not provide any information concerning bottled-water. Perhaps, these bottled-water still contains clormium 5. In this sense, the recommendation amounts to nothing.

In conclusion, the argument above fails to convince me. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide more detail about the preliminary study above and other methods which can be used for dealing with the drink water containing clormium 5.

[ 本帖最后由 wt_2005 于 2008-11-7 12:26 编辑 ]

cadgetUID: 2565428

我还没有参加AW考试，提一点点拙见:loveliness:

文章的结论：Therefore, in order to prevent allergies and skin rashes, communities that cannot afford to rid their drinking water of clormium 5 should replace drinking fountains in public buildings, such as schools and libraries, with bottled-water coolers."
如果想让这个结论成立，需要做几个假设：

1.allergies and skin rashes是clormium 5引起的（第一个假设）。A preliminary study has linked cooking with water containing clormium 5 to an increased incidence of allergies and skin rashes. 这里的红色字体有些问题，preliminary study 得出的结论是否科学？这里提到的是cooking和allergies and skin rashes有关，是什么样的关系？如果含有clormium 5的水不去cooking，那么会不会就没有allergies and skin rashes？如果是这样，那public buildings就没必要装bottled-water coolers，因为这里的用水不是用来cooking的。

2.那些负担不起除去clormium 5花费的社区的饮用水里含有clormium 5（第二个假设）。这一点是值得怀疑的，文章只是说Tests of the drinking water in several areas have revealed the presence of clormium 5.那有可能付不起除clormium 5费用的社区的饮用水不含有clormium 5

3.replace drinking fountains with bottled-water coolers是有效果的（第三个假设）。文章没有提供相关的证据，即使是有效果的，那检测和净化的费用是最便宜的吗？

4.replace drinking fountains in public buildings, such as schools and libraries能够有效的防止 allergies and skin rashes（第四个假设）。仅仅通过在公共场合安装这个 bottled-water coolers就可以了吗？在家庭，工作....的地方一样会感染啊！

而你在这里所攻击的对象：1. 调查样品、方法
                                    2. clormium 5 和allergies and skin rashes的因果关系
                                    3. bottled-water coolers不一定是最好的办法

wt_2005UID: 2558268

2. 我第二点攻击的是在承认clormium 5和allergies因果关系存在的情况下，有clormium 5也不一定会引起allergies。
呵呵~我的arg写的字数很可怜，主要我打字就比较慢，打快了会错很多单词。所以我的开头和结尾写得很短，想把时间留给中间部分。
总感觉中间部分分析得不够深入。。不知道怎么改进呀。。。

cadgetUID: 2565428

我倾向于开头结尾简介，把中间的论证多写一些
你的第二点是从另一个角度来看的，视角不同吧，但是我觉得主要的逻辑问题是clormium 5 和allergies and skin rashes是否存在因果关系
我觉得这个问题层层论证好一些。
1.先说clormium 5 和allergies and skin rashes是否有因果关系。（这一点可以从A preliminary study着手，这个也仅仅调查了cooking和allergies and skin rashes的关系，局部不能代表整体，而且是初步调查，科学性值得怀疑）
2.退一步来讲，即使两者存在因果关系，那些负担不起花费的社区饮用水是否都存在clormium 5（这一点可以从Tests of the drinking water in several areas have revealed the presence of clormium 5着手）
3.如果上面两个假设成立，那安装瓶装水冷却器是否有效？或者是最便宜且有效的办法？（这个并没有资料证明）
4.如果要防止allergies and skin rashes，光在公共建筑安装这个是远远不够的

maomaoziUID: 2304801

"Clormium 5 is an odorless, tasteless, and generally harmless industrial by-product that can enter the water supply. A preliminary study has linked cooking with water containing clormium 5 to an increased incidence of allergies and skin rashes. Tests of the drinking water in several areas have revealed the presence of clormium 5. Although it is possible to remove clormium 5 from water, the costs of routine testing and purification are higher than many communities can afford. Therefore, in order to prevent allergies and skin rashes, communities that cannot afford to rid their drinking water of clormium 5 should replace drinking fountains in public buildings, such as schools and libraries, with bottled-water coolers."
WORDS: 397          TIME: 00:28:25          DATE: 2008-11-6 19:56:41

Before the implementation the recommendation in the argument above, there are several evidence which need to be reexamined in some other aspects, as discussed below.

To begin with, the result of study is open to doubt. Firstly, the argument above provide no detail or information concerning how many people participate the study and how they are selected. Common sense tells us that the smaller the sample size is, the less reliable and credible the result of study will be. Perhaps, only 100 people participate the study, if this is the case, this small sample size is insufficient and imprecise to draw any conclusion. Also due to lacking of information concerning how people are selected to participate the study, we cannot conclude whether the result of study is representative enough. Secondly, the study overlooks other factors which can lead to allergies and skin rashes. Perhaps, due to eating some unclean food, some of the participants get allergies and skin rashes. If this is the case, the conclusion renders its incredibility due to ignore other factors which can lead the same symptoms, such as skin rashes.


你这段批了survery&other factors 一个针对的是样本本身是否可靠，即使数据样本够的情况下，调查本身是不是有缺陷。比如是否又有其他因素影响。（恩，我觉得你列他因的话可以多举几个例子，针对这个allergies and skin rash。可能被调查人本身就对这些比较敏感等等）

In addition, even if the result of the study is substantiated, it does not follow that presence of clormium 5 will definitely cause allergies and skin rashes. Perhaps, the amount of clormium 5 in the drinking water is little so that it is insufficient to cause people sick. Perhaps, some other materials exist in the drinking water too, which prohibit the effect of clormium 5 to cause people sick. Without ruling out all these possibilities above, the conclusion of argument is groundless to me.

你这段是说即使调查可靠，也不一定是clormium5 effects，举了其他物质的存在会影响（你这里还可以说下也没有科学的证据表明cl5有毒性感觉你这段跟上一段的末尾好像才是一段。）

（一般说到调查，一个是样本数够不够，一个是调查对象有没有个体差异性，一个是调查手法可不可靠，这些一般都是没有提到的，你可以固定的根据这几个方面批。然后最后一般递进到即使调查可靠的情况下，会不会受到其他因素影响~然后列他因，我觉得这个是比较完整的)



Last not the least, even if the foregoing assumptions are all substantiated, it does not follow that replacing drinking fountains in public buildings with bottled-water coolers will be the best solution. The argument overlooks other methods to deal with drinking water containing clormium 5, which maybe more economical and effective. Perhaps, adding some medicines into the water can offset the effects of clormium 5. Further, the argument does not provide any information concerning bottled-water. Perhaps, these bottled-water still contains clormium 5. In this sense, the recommendation amounts to nothing.（也没有证据说bw表明会更便宜呢？即使便宜，但是学校之类的能承担么？bw会不会也引起rash之类的呢？）

In conclusion, the argument above fails to convince me. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide more detail about the preliminary study above and other methods which can be used for dealing with the drink water containing clormium 5.

恩，其实你的一大部分在批的是survery，如果批这个比较顺手的话可以，但是要详细点的批，感觉你写arg有点太急了，提到一点，就不详细说，考虑问题要全面。列他因也要多列几个嘛~）

然后你的段落貌似都是衔接的，这点很好，但是感觉你的last not the least 是不是已经没有时间写了呢，感觉完全没有展开来呢？

我建议你再把 arg的提纲列详细点，比如批这点需要从哪些方面批，他因的话该列哪几点~

不知道你时间来不来得及。加油~lucky!~

maomaoziUID: 2304801

恩，你这几天可以打些范文练打字，可能可以提高一下你的打字速度，还可以熟悉一下语句~

nvligreUID: 2689384

补充一点就是论据展开可以丰富点