ARGUMENT34=美丽G程=小组第七次作业by猫斯基

猫斯基UID: 2607814

TOPIC: ARGUMENT34 - Milk and dairy products are rich in vitamin D and calcium, substances essential for building and maintaining bones. Many people therefore believe that a diet rich in dairy products can help prevent osteoporosis, a disease in which the bones weaken significantly with age and that is linked to both environmental and genetic factors. But a long-term study of a large number of people has found that those who have consistently consumed dairy products throughout the years of the study have a higher rate of bone fractures than any other participants in the study. Since bone fractures are a symptom of osteoporosis, this study result shows that a diet rich in dairy products may actually increase, rather than decrease, the risk of osteoporosis.
。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。
in this argument, only based on the mere fact that those who participated in the study consuming more diary food have a higher rate  of bone factures compared with any other participants, the writer draws the conclusion that eating more diary food leads to an increase rate in the bone fracture rather than a decrease.  This apparently reasonable context actually has the following logical flaws after comprehensive analysis.
  First, the result is based on a totally unbelievable study, meaning that the study itself is dubious. Since the writer does not inform us who participated in the study or the number of the participants, even the health conditions of them, we are not aware whether these participants are really on behalf of all the people in the society. It is possible those who participated in the study consuming more diary food were accidently all elderly people with a higher rate of bone fractures or there were just because of some genetic reasons causing their higher rate of bone fractures.
  Second, no evidence is presented that it is osteoporosis that caused bone fractures; the writer simply neglects other possible diseases that have the same symptom with octopuses. Since bone fractures are just one of the symptom of osteoporosis, only judging from the bone fractures we can not diagnose too early that the person has an osteoporosis. It is possible those who consuming more diary food in the study have some other illness that have the symptom of bone fractures rather than osteoporosis, let alone that it is their more consuming of diary food caused the higher risk of osteoporosis.
  Thirdly, even though we assume that it is osteoporosis that caused the bone fractures, the writer does not line other elements of the food they consume. What if they digest more other food that may cause osteoporosis than diary food that can lower the risk? In such circumstance, we can not recognize whether it is their rich diary diet caused the osteoporosis or their higher consuming of other food made the result.
  Last but not least, the writer just makes a mistaken comparison. In the conclusion of the study, he said that compared with other participants, those who digest more diary food have a higher rate of bone fractures, which is quite logically wrong. Actually what he should compare is how their conditions are when participants consume more diary food, normal amount, and little. Since people's age, health conditions and so on are unknown; we are not convinced that the comparison is believable. In order to persuade us, the writer should indicate how they are when they do not consume diary food.
  By and large, because of the wrongly conducted study, little convincing result or conclusion can we get from it. To reach a rational suggestion, the writer should illustrate us the concrete conditions of the participants and make them comparable in terms of people in society, further, he should well warn us what people have else and how their bones act when they consume different amount of diary food. Only in this way, can he draw a convincing result.