[big fish] Argument5 by Greeky

greekyUID: 2605662

5The following appeared in the business section of a newspaper.

"Given that the number of people in our country with some form of arthritis is expected to rise from 40 million to 60 million over the next twenty years, pharmaceutical companies that produce drugs for the treatment of arthritis should be very profitable. Many analysts believe that in ten years Becton Pharmaceuticals, which makes Xenon, the best-selling drug treatment for arthritis, will be the most profitable pharmaceutical company. But the patent on Xenon expires in three years, and other companies will then be able to produce a cheaper version of the drug. Thus, it is more likely that in ten years the most profitable pharmaceutical company will be Perkins Pharmaceuticals, maker of a new drug called Xylan, which clinical studies show is preferred over Xenon by seven out of ten patients suffering from the most extreme cases of arthritis."

  Only based on groundless evidence and dubious assumption,the arguer draws a conclusion that for the reason that the number of patients suffering from arthritis will increase,the pharmaceutical companies will be more profitable and Becton company and Perkins company will be the most profitable in a row. At first glance,the conclusion sounds somewhat cogent,nonetheless,a further reflection reveals that it lacks some substantial concerns. From my personal perspective,the argument suffers from three logical flaws.

  First of all, the arguer fails to establish a correct cause-and-effect relationship between the fact that the the number of arthritis patients will increase and the claim that pharmaceutical companies dealing with arthritis will be more profitable. The increasing of the patients who suffer from this illness merely means a better sale. Nonetheless,an increase in sale may not make the companies more profitable,there is a myriad of possible occurrence that could prevent the industry becoming more profitable,for instance a fierce competition will compel the companies to invest more money on advertisement and sale the drug in a cheaper price,which can low the margin profit.
The arguer`s claim is unacceptable unless there is a compelling evidence that support the causal relationship between the two events.

  Additionally,the arguer asserts that when the patent on Xenon expires in three years, other companies will then be able to produce a cheaper version of the drug.nonetheless,the arguer fails to rule outs some possible negative events in the foreseeable future that may prevent the others company to produce a cheaper version of the drug. Perhaps it is so difficult to imitate the procedure of producing the drug that there are still few companies which are able to produce it. Or the price of the rude material for the producing of the drug is much higher than before,which make it is nearly impossible to sole this drug in a cheaper price.

  Finally,if the surveyor did not provide enough samples of patient volunteer and did so randomly across the entire patients who suffers from arthritis,the result of the study would be unacceptable to gauge the actual function of the new drug in dealing with arthritis.  The arguer merely tells us that"seven of ten patients",however he neglects to provide the absolute number of volunteer,which make the study unacceptable. If the arguer only indicates that the volunteer are "patients suffering from the most extreme cases of arthritis",it undoubtedly tell that maybe this drug only function to this type of patients. Or if the number of volunteers only account for a very small percentage,the result of the study will also be meaningless.

  In sum,the arguer fails to substantiate his claims i have discussed above,because the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong provide to what the arguer maintains.to be more convincing the arguer would had provided more information with regard to the procedure of the study and the numbers of the patient volunteers. Additionally,he would have to establish a correct causal relationship between the increase of the  arthritis patients and the profits of the drug companies that produce drug related with arthritis. If the argument had included the factors discussed above,it would have been more convincing and logically acceptable.

greekyUID: 2605662

兄弟姐妹们帮忙看一下 我这个模板的影子是不是重了点？

missingusaUID: 2625832

请修改下帖子的标题, 正确的发帖格式可以参考此帖:
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1042201

jenius4869UID: 2659821

Only based on groundless evidence and dubious assumption,the arguer draws a conclusion that （要是我这里就直接把后面的conclusion带过来，然后再for the reason that，否则觉得that 很多）for the reason that the number of patients suffering from arthritis will increase,the pharmaceutical companies will be more profitable and Becton company and Perkins company will be the most profitable in a row（？in a row有两个意思 一个是连续 一个是成行 这里是？文中是说Becton company和Perkins company都有可能成为最盈利的公司吧 不是说同时成为或者都成为吧）. At first glance,the conclusion sounds somewhat cogent,nonetheless,a further reflection reveals that it lacks some substantial concerns. From my personal perspective,the argument suffers from three logical flaws.





  First of all, the arguer fails to establish a correct cause-and-effect relationship between the fact that the the number of arthritis patients will increase and the claim that pharmaceutical companies dealing with arthritis will be more profitable. The increasing of the patients who suffer from this illness merely means a better sale（of arthritic drug）. Nonetheless,an increase in sale may not make the companies more profitable,there is a myriad of possible occurrence that could prevent the industry becoming more profitable,for instance a fierce competition will compel the companies to invest more money on（invest...in） advertisement and sale the drug in(at) a cheaper price,which can low(low不作动词，用lower) the margin profit.
The arguer`s claim is unacceptable unless there is a compelling evidence that support(s) the causal relationship between the two events.





  Additionally,the arguer asserts that when the patent on Xenon expires in three years, other companies will then be able to produce a cheaper version of the drug.nonetheless,the arguer fails to rule outs some possible negative events in the foreseeable future that may prevent the (去掉the)others company (other companies)to produce(producing prevent..from doing sth) a cheaper version of the drug. Perhaps it is so（too） difficult to imitate the procedure of producing the drug that there are still few companies which are able to produce it. Or the price of the rude material （原材料 raw mterial）for the producing of the drug is much higher than before,which make（s） it is（去掉is） nearly impossible to sole this drug in（at） a cheaper price.





  Finally,if the surveyor did not provide enough samples of patient volunteer （voluntary patients） and did so randomly across the entire patients who suffers(去s) from arthritis,the result of the study would be unacceptable to gauge the actual function of the new drug in dealing with arthritis.  The arguer merely tells us that"seven of ten patients",however he neglects to provide the absolute number of volunteer,which make the study unacceptable. If the arguer only indicates that the volunteer are "patients suffering from the most extreme cases of arthritis",it undoubtedly tell（s） that maybe this drug only function to this type of patients. Or if the number of volunteers only account for a very small percentage,the result of the study will also be meaningless.（感觉这段你没有提到作者用这个实验到底想说明什么问题，也就是作者的结论是Perkins Pharmaceuticals会成为获利最大的公司）




  In sum,the arguer fails to substantiate his claims i have discussed above,because the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong provide（？provide只能做动词吧 evidence） to what the arguer maintains.to be more convincing the arguer would had（have to） provided more information with regard （感觉没有这样用的，要我就直接写about了。。楼主不要说我低级哈。。。）to the procedure of the study and the numbers of the patient volunteers. Additionally,he would have to establish a correct causal relationship between the increase of the  arthritis（arthritic） patients and the profits of the drug companies that produce drug related with arthritis. If the argument had included the factors discussed above,it would have been more convincing and logically acceptable.


第一次改作文  我也没什么谱  怕误导了你就不好了  就简单说说我的感觉  你要不同意我说的就别放心上了哈

1.注意一下单复数，尤其是用which定语从句的时候要注意主语是单数还是复数，虽然是些小问题，但还是标出来了一些提醒一下楼主。
2.词汇可以再联系丰富些，我的词汇也不怎么丰富，可以多背几个同义词。
3.还有关于作者的指代，我看的范文上面都是全文统一的，就一直说Speaker，author，或this argument。
4.论证过程觉得还好，跟范文的思路差不多，至于模板的痕迹，我想每个人都会有点吧，像我也是刚开始写，开始都是模仿，什么时候超脱出来了，就形成自己的文字了，会有那一天的。

PS：我的水平有限，可能在论证和行文结构上提不出什么建议，因为我也在一个摸索的阶段. It is my pleasure to read your task.