Argument35

domudomuUID: 2670967

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.


In this argument, the arguer advocates that the number of headaches suffered by the citizens of Mentia will decline with the use of salicylate. The arguer cited a twenty-year study to claim that salicylates are correlated with the decline of headaches and salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin to prove this. At first glance, this argument seems to be appealing, while after taking many things into consideration and clearly examining the author's reasoning, these evidences will neither provide a logical support, nor be practical and the argument contains several facets that are questionable.

The very outstanding problem concerned to the argument is that salicylates may not have the same effect just as aspirin even they are both the members of the same chemical family. Perhaps, the specific chemical structure would lead salicylates have partial effect of the asprin, but not all, since there are still other components with salicylates. For instance, sands are the members of the same chemical family as the valuable diamonds, but they have totally two kinds of effects in daily life. And the arguer fails to tell us where comes out the conclusion about the some chemical family, is the result reliable. On several grounds, this evidence lend little credible support for the conclusion.

The second flaw weakens the argument's logic is the report about the decline in the number of headaches.
The arguer provides no evidence that the results of the twenty-year report are reliable. If many headaches didn't report to the survey or just hid it, then we can't say the number declined. Even if the report is reliable, we can't say that it is the salicylate make the declined number. There are many other factors, perhaps people found new effective pills to treat the headaches or with the improvements of the environment and less pressure, people are all becoming heathier than before. Without offer more details about the report, the survey will make no sense about the argument.

In addition, the author doesn't reform us what kind of food will contain the salicylate additives and whether the local citizen would like to buy such food. Flavor additives are not for all kinds of food, and perhaps the food with salicylates is just the one people dislike in that area. Thus it will make no sense to use salicylates as addictive. Even if people will buy the food containing addictives, the author doesn't tell us how to control the quality of salicylates. Perhaps more salicylates will cause some side-effect even lead other diseases to citizens. These facts will lend considerable support to the arguer's conclusion that the new use of salicylates on food will decline the headaches.

The last but not the least, the headaches of citizens in Mentia will probably caused by other factors in the future. Chemical materials can solve headache disease only in physical level. With more pressure and radiation, headache may be caused by various facets. Thus, we should treat them from both physical and psychological facts. It would be too hasty to predict that the headache will decline in the future without enough evidence.

As it stands, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend a strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument and make it more logical the arguer should offer concrete function of salicylates and more details of the survey. We would need to know the method and dose of salicylates used as flavor addictives for foods. And we also need to know the living environment or other objective factors that will result in headaches in the future.

家家☆yoonjaeUID: 2646910

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.”

In this argument, the arguer advocates that the number of headaches suffered by the citizens of Mentia will decline with the use of salicylate. The arguer cited a twenty-year study to claim that salicylates are correlated with the decline of headaches and salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin to prove this. At first glance, this argument seems to be appealing, while after taking many things into consideration and clearly examining the author’s reasoning, these evidences will neither provide a logical support, nor be practical and the argument contains several facets that are questionable. (万能句最好还是能少用则少用，要用也要用得简短，用得精炼，这个句子太长了，又凑字数的嫌疑) 【开头思路清晰，条理分明，原文的逻辑链也整理出来了，做的不错】

Fundamentally, （最好还是能够有明确的逻辑连接词来体现论证的层次，这对rater来说就好比信号灯一样的作用）the very outstanding problem concerned to the argument is that salicylates may not have the same effect just as aspirin even they are both the members of the same chemical family. Perhaps, the specific chemical structure would lead salicylates have partial effect of the aspirin, but not all, since there are still other components with salicylates. For instance, sands are the members of the same chemical family as the valuable diamonds, but they have totally two kinds of effects in daily life. （这个例子用得很有问题，sand跟diamond是要强调他们的物理作用还是化学作用？）And the arguer fails to tell us where comes out the conclusion about the some （？some？是same么？） chemical family, is the result reliable.（这里差了半句没有说完，结论是否可靠，然后呢？既然这样我们完全有理由怀疑基于此得出的结论bla bla bla，一定要记着把话说完整。） On several grounds, this evidence lends little credible support for the conclusion. 【结构上已经思路比较明确了，但是在论证的过程中一定要注意句子与句子之间的环环相扣，论证能更丰满一些会更好】

Moreover, （连接词）the second flaw weakens the argument’s logic is the report about the decline in the number of headaches.（这个TS写得不对了，weaken这个argument的不是report本身，而是作者的错误关联及无理假设，跟report本身没有任何关系，庖丁解牛始由韧始，要从关节找毛病，牛骨头是很硬的。。。） The arguer provides no evidence that the results of the twenty-year report are reliable. （对于文中所给出的survey或是report之类的数据，我们一般默认是正确的，不用去质疑其真实性，具体的内容，去把这个帖子仔细看一遍：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-968840-1-1.html）If many headaches didn’t report to the survey or just hid it, then we can’t say the number declined. Even if the report is reliable, we can’t say that it is the salicylates make the declined number. There are many other factors, perhaps people found new effective pills to treat the headaches or with the improvements of the environment and less pressure, people are all becoming healthier than before. Without offer more details about the report, the survey will make no sense about the argument. 【鉴于这一段找的逻辑错误本身值得商榷，建议重写一下】

In addition, the author doesn’t reform us what kind of food will contain the salicylate additives and whether the local citizen would like to buy such food. （事实上作者在这里所犯的逻辑错误是无理假设，那么你在TS中直接点出这个错误就可以了，没有提供足够的信息以及本地居民是否有意愿购买都是可以在后面展开的）Flavor additives are not for all kinds of food, and perhaps the food with salicylates is just the one people dislike in that area. Thus it will make no sense to use salicylates as addictive.（这两句的逻辑有点乱了，风味添加剂不是适用所有的食物，这个能说明什么？这个地区的居民正好不喜欢含有水杨酸的食品，这个又能说明什么？每一个理由都要陈述完整，不能着急，一件说完说清楚了再接着说另外一件，不要跳。还有后面那句的thus就更不对了，make no sense，如果因为不是所有的食物都需要添加剂那么添加剂就没有存在的必要了？这不仅逻辑上说不通，事实上也说不通。） Even if people will buy the food containing addictives, the author doesn’t tell us how to control the quality of salicylates. （这个是你自己推测的吧？不是说要如何控制，而是有理由怀疑salicylate摄入过量会不会产生反面作用，你的思路是跳跃的，拉回来重新组织语言）Perhaps more salicylates will cause some side-effect even lead other diseases to citizens. These facts will lend considerable support to the arguer’s conclusion that the new use of salicylates on food will decline the headaches.

The last but not the least, the headaches of citizens in Mentia will probably caused by other factors in the future. （这个就扯得更远了，眼下的情况都没有弄清楚了就开始in the future了。。。不要着急丫，眼前的Mentia居民头痛的理由都没有阐述清楚哪，到底跟salicylate有没有关联你都没有交代，一步步说清楚，probably caused by other factors in the future是你在论述到后面的时候才应该提出的合理推断）Chemical materials can solve headache disease only in physical level. With more pressure and radiation, headache may be caused by various facets. Thus, we should treat them from both physical and psychological facts. It would be too hasty to predict that the headache will decline in the future without enough evidence.

As it stands, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend a strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument and make it more logical the arguer should offer concrete function of salicylates and more details of the survey. We would need to know the method and dose of salicylates used as flavor addictives for foods. And we also need to know the living environment or other objective factors that will result in headaches in the future.【个人习惯，结尾不改】


红色为有问题的部分，绿色批注为个人建议，蓝色批注为整段评价，紫色为不错的用词，橘色为我添加的单词