【1010G精英组】ISSUR&ARGU 习作——by Group Choice

elevenkarUID: 2791267

Argument188
A new report suggests that men and women experience pain very differently from one another, and that doctors should consider these differences when prescribing pain medications. When researchers administered the same dosage of kappa options--- a painkiller---to 28 men and 20 women who were having their wisdom teeth extracted, the women reported feeling much less pain than the men, and the easing of pain lasted considerably longer in women. This research suggests that kappa opioids should be prescribed for women whenever pain medication is required, whereas men should be given other kinds of pain medication. In addition, researchers should reevaluate the effects of all medications on men versus women.
一篇新的报告表明，男人和女人感受疼痛的方式彼此不同，因此医师在开具处方治疗头痛时应考虑到这些差异。当研究人员给拔智齿的28位男性和20位女性用同样剂量的卡巴止痛药时，女性反映说她们受的疼痛比男性少，而且缓解疼痛的时间在女性身上比较长。这一研究表明，当需要止痛药时，卡巴止痛药应该给女性服用，而男性应该服用其他类型的止痛药。此外，研究人员应该根据男女差异重新评估所有药物的疗效。

In the arguments, the author concludes that doctors should prescribe different pain medications according to the gender of the patient and should reevaluate the whole medications distinctively for male or female. To uphold the conclusion, the author cites a research about the effect of a painkiller for men and women separately when having teeth taken out. At first glance, the argument appears to be plausible, however close scrutiny reveals that it is flawed in several critical aspects.

In the first place, the argument is based on a questionable research. The number of subjects might be insufficient to constitute a representative sample. Were the 28 men and 20 women chosen randomly? It is entirely possible that most of the selected women happen to assimilate the painkiller very well. In addition, the level of pain reported by the patients may not reflect their actual level of pain. Perhaps some men virtually felt less pain than some women, but they pretended to be in a sharp stab of pain. Until these questions are answered, the survey results are worthless as evidence to prove that men and women suffer from different pain levels.

Secondly, even assuming that the research is convincing, the author still unfairly assumes the difference between men and women is the major reason that results in the differences between their feelings on pain. However, it is not necessarily the case. Many other possible factors can explain the phenomenon. Perhaps the women were given more anesthetic than men. Or perhaps they were given different kind of anesthetic, thus it might the anesthetic, instead of kappa opioids, that leads to the difference of pain feeling and duration. Therefore, without ruling out or even considering the possible explanations, it would be groundless to attribute the difference of experiencing pain to gender.

Thirdly, the effect of kappa opioids on patients who have their wisdom teeth extracted could not be hastily generalized to all conditions where pain medication is required. However, no evidence is offered to support the assumption. Similarly, the effect of kappa opioids on pain feeling could not be hastily applied to all other pain medications. The underlying assumption operative in this inference is that kappa opioids on pain feeling is representative of all pain medications.

Finally, granted that pain medications should be prescribed discriminatingly, it is not necessary to reevaluate the effects of all medication on men versus women. Even though there are some medications that should be prescribed discriminatingly, most medicines are designed for general people.

In sum, the argument relies on several ambiguous assumptions which render it unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should provide firm evidence about the credibility of the research. The author must also provide clear evidence that gender is only factor that cause the different pain feelings. To better evaluate the argument, I would need more information about whether kappa opioids on pain feeling is typical of all pain medications. I would also need to know whether all medications should be treated differently for men and women.

cynthia313UID: 2765794

argue188 by Cynthia
In this report, the author claims that all medications should be reevaluate the effect on men versus women, since kappa opioids, a painkiller, revealed different effect on pain feeling between men and women according to a study administered among wisdom teeth extracted patients. This argument which seems logical at first glance, is problematic for several fallacies.

To support the conclusion, the arguer cites a result of a study which administered among wisdom teeth extracted patients. However, the reliability of this study remain questionable. On one hand, the sample might not be representative enough to reach in a credible result, since the number of patients engaged in the study is low, and no sign of such procedures for random sampling is mentioned. On the other hand, the level of pain which is merely reported by patients might not represent the real level of pain, since different patients might have different standards for evaluate pain level.

Even if one accepts the result of this questionable study, the arguer's statement is still unconvincing, since there might be other reasons which are responsible for the different pain feeling between men and women after use the same dosage of kappa opioids. It is possible that men are sensitive than women to pain feeling physiologically, so the difference would happen after administering all kinds of pain medicines, not limited to kappa opioids. Another reason might lead to the result is that the average body weight of men is usually heavier than women, as a result the same dosage of kappa opioids might cause lower blood drug concentrate with men than it is with women, thus it is obviously that women would feel less pain than men. The arguer would have to rule out other factors which might relevant to the result of the study to make his or her statement acceptable.

Finally, granted that the different pain feelings between men and women is truly caused by the drug effect of kappa opioids and pain medicines should be prescribed respectively, the assertion that all the medicines' effect should be reevaluated is groundless. The necessity and the feasibility of reevaluating all the drugs are no doubt questionable.

In conclusion, this argument is unconvincing for some logical fallacies. The arguer would have to provide more evidence to justify the reliability of the study which was cited to support the arguer's statement. To better evaluate the argument, the arguer would have to rule out other factors which might responsible for the different pain feeling between men and women. In addition, the conclusion, which is drawn through the study of one painkiller, should not be extend to all medicines without sufficient reasons.

toywangUID: 2700880

issue 50 by weili
50"In order to improve the quality of instruction at the college and university level, all faculty should be required to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach."
关键词：the quality of instruction，
限定词：at the college and university level
正文：
With the advancement [这边用progressiv 怎么样？]of our society, it is more important to boost the association between college and company. To improve the quality of instruction at college, many young faculties who lack experiences should be required to spend time working outside the academic in professions relevant to courses they teach. 【这里照搬原题不爱好吧，可以换种说法】The quality of instruction, in my opinion, is not only to make students have a deeper comprehension of the theory but also acquaint them with the information of those companies relevant to their field.[我觉得最后一句话要有呈起下文的作用]

Firstly, the faculty can make their courses more vivid and help students comprehend the theory more deeply if they work in professions relevant to the courses they teach. It is known to all that one can learn knowledge better and apprehend it more deeply【flexible】 by using it instead of only reading it from book. With experiences of working in relevant professions, a teacher can explain the theory clearly and also use a real example from work to make it visual and cogent. For instance, a teacher of electronic engineer, who has worked in a mobile phone company, can exemplify the wireless communication through the work of a mobile phone, which is very close to our daily life. And a teacher who teaches psychology can offer students more true examples of patients’ disease and how to talk with and heal them.【这两个例子举得很好】

Secondly, the teachers’ working experience in relevant companies can help students know more about the development direction of their fields and acquire more practical skills. A teacher can tell his or her students what is hot of their specialties in the companies. And with information from their teachers, they can choose what they should learn more definitely, which is helpful to their later career after school【after school 是放学的意思，
改成after graduate 】. Even more, companies’ competitions spur working ways and styles in companies 【可以省略】more different from colleges’. Colleges’ work need carefully and creatively, which may take you one year or more to finish a project or research. However, companies’ research must be very quick and low cost. It brings plenty convenient ways to simplify the design of product, the analysis of a question and calculation. If teachers can bring such skills to their students early, it will be very useful to students’ study and work and make students more like those experienced engineers.

However, faculties should also focus on some creative researches, which may boost the innovation of the companies, such as the development of new materials and new ways to make electricity. It is inevitable that companies’ direction 【是否用sight好点呢？公司的眼光】has its own limitation, which is always determined by short-term benefits. If faculties all work outside, it will confine their imagination, which is harmful to their research, the development of society and their students’ grow.

In sum, the experience in relevant companies is helpful to faculties’ teaching and comprehension. It promotes the quality of their courses, such as a deeper comprehension of a subject and an introduction of practical skills. But professors shouldn’t confine their creativities by the companies’ developing mode. So a professor with deep experience should focus on creative research while faculties who are young and lack working experience should spend time working outside in professions relevant to the courses they teach.

1Working outside 并不代表就是company 啊，学法律的就要当律师，学社会学的可能就去政府啊
2 最后对于是否出去工作的区分我觉得按学科需要区分比较合理，
按年纪的话不大合适吧

3整体还是很流畅的，行文顺序简单。例子的选择也很恰当

xingfuhbjUID: 2769976

修改argu188 by lxklys   
同样剂量的止痛药分别给20个女的和28个男的——》女的疼痛感轻些，并且疼痛持续的时间短于男性——》这种药不适于男性,适用于所有女性——》对于所有的药，医生都要重新估量其结果对于男性和女性

The speaker cites a new report to verify that doctors should consider these differences(用the differences会更好不?) when prescribing pain medications, for men and women experiencing pain very differently from each other. The conclusion is drawn by the experiment, which only involves in 20 women and 28 men. All of them are given the same dosage of kappa opioids to alleviate the pain of teeth extracted. According to the report, the author deduces that this medication should be prescribed for women under any circumstances rather than men just because the women in the experiment feel much less pain and the easing of pain lasted longer in women, besides, all medications on men versus women should be reevaluated the effects. In my opinion, this statement fails to convince because it contains several critical fallacies and roles out the other factors.
建议作者在第一段复述题意时少用些笔墨，何况文章本身字数很够分量，这段简洁些会感觉更精练的。
奉上三个关于开头的好贴：
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=134092&highlight
http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/thread-1073291-1-1.html
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=920961&highlight

Firstly, this research entailing(这个词是用的太native了还是用错了?请指教~!) 28 men and 20 women is very small (结构貌似有问题?)so that they may be not(not be) representative of the entire population(虽然没啥错误,但是个人感觉用人口总数这个概念有点太恐怖了~这样一比起来~很多实验都很苍白无力的~)
as a sample.(看到这里我醒悟了作者的结构用意~但是感觉结构似乎有些混乱了,建议把这一个长句用正常的方式表达会更好~) Regarding the report, it just refers to the women and men are suffering from the teeth extracted(这貌似不是一个名词形式吧?) but without any information of whether their cases are the same. Maybe the men's symptom is more difficult than women so that their pains are worse(原来pain可以和worse搭配~学到鸟) naturally. As a result, the evidence fails to be convincing just depending on the small sample size and by neglecting the condition that men's wisdom teeth are physically more problematic than women to remove.(建议这里不要用某个具体的情况代替它忽略的东西)

Furthermore, even if the sample contains all the symptoms and the cases of people in research are almost the same as each other(这是native表达么?感觉有点怪怪的~请指教~!), we can't conclude that the medication should not be required by the men, for the dosage of the medication as(用is会好些不?) a relevant one deserving to be considered. Knowing the report, the research that(这里应该用 in which吧~) the men and women are administrated(虽然看着怪怪的~不过还是收着哈~) the same dosage may neglect the differences of stature between men and women.(我很好奇为什么上一段的问题这段又说一遍?) As known to all, men are physically bigger in size than women so that the impacts of the same medication on women may be more effective, compared with the men. (这个理由真的挺诡异的~作者是觉得男人体积大~药性不容易生效么…)Probably, we can deduce that the cause of men's pain reducing less(这个表达…建议换一下吧~) is the dosage rather than the medication itself. Amplifying the dosage for men instead of using another prescription can solve the problem.

Finally, even if this drug--kappa opioids--affects women more than men indeed(感觉这里有些小小的逻辑问题.因为引起不同的貌似是女人本身的痛觉承受能力,而并非药物对女人产生的药效会更大,虽然这样貌似也说得过去,但本着重重拍文的原则,建议作者再考虑一下), we can't conclude that it can be applied on(固定搭配be applied to) the women under any circumstances. The medication to be alleviate(表达很有点问题~可以考虑改成 used to alleviate) the pain of teeth extracted shows no evidence that it can be required in any symptoms.(我still觉得表达有问题…至少require 一般不和in搭吧…) And without considering some particular conditions of women such as the pregnancy(我觉得这个情况貌似是可以忽略的,因为pregnancy用药严格,它题中有说whenever pain medication is required, 貌似pregnancy应该不属于这个范围内~当然只是个人意见~), the sensibility, it may bring about the horrible aftermath. Besides it, according to the report, the author suggest that researchers should reevaluate the effect of all medications on men versus women, which I think is not reasonable because the research in the report the author cites may not be incredible(这词怎么用这儿了?)through the analysis made above.(感觉这个理由很勉强,因为是先假定了report的结果是错的. 我觉得可以就算它是对的,也不应该全部reevaluate,比如考虑到成本啥啥的.) The proper thing to do is to prescribe the drug just by the patient's individual needs rather than genders.

In sum, the speaker’s argument fails to contain enough numbers as a sample, (建议去掉逗号)to expound the people's information about their symptoms and neglects other factors may result in the conclusion such as the dosage used. The speaker overstates the medication should be applied on all women ruling out some particular conditions (结构搭配不对)and the whole medication should be reevaluated just for this report, which overemphasizes the differences of gender instead of individuality. Anyway, I can't accept this argument.(最后一句建议delete或者change..)

因为我本身不怎么了解语法,所以看到作者有语法问题的时候,不能精确的指明具体是什么语法错误,请原谅哈~
作者的表达貌似存在着一些问题.建议先尽量不要写长句,先把短句练精了,语感练出来了,长句就水到渠成了.~
个人建议文中尽量不要出现很主观的”I什么什么..”, 要try to 给rater一种你很客观的感觉~
本着造福版友的原则~我拍文一向挺重的~好像每次拍完都是红彤彤的一片~请原谅哈~
随时欢迎讨论~!

cynthia313UID: 2765794

argue188 by eleven 修改 by Cynthia
In the arguments, the author concludes that doctors should prescribe different pain medications according to the gender of the patient and should reevaluate the whole medications distinctively for male or female. To uphold the conclusion, the author cites a research about the effect of a painkiller for(on) men and women separately when having teeth taken out. At first glance, the argument appears to be plausible, however close scrutiny reveals that it is flawed in several critical aspects.In the first place, the argument is based on a questionable research. The number of subjects might be insufficient to constitute a representative sample. Were the 28 men and 20 women chosen randomly? It is entirely possible that most of the selected women happen to assimilate the painkiller very well. In addition, the level of pain reported by the patients may not reflect their actual level of pain. Perhaps some men virtually felt less pain than some women, but they pretended to be in a sharp stab of pain. Until these questions are answered, the survey results are worthless as evidence to prove that men and women suffer from different pain levels.Secondly, even assuming that the research is convincing, the author still unfairly assumes the difference between men and women is the major reason that results in the differences between their feelings on pain. However, it is not necessarily the case.(?貌似结构有问题，还是一种偶没见过的表达方法，还请指教？） Many other possible factors can explain the phenomenon. Perhaps the women were given more anesthetic than men. Or perhaps they were given different kind of anesthetic, thus it might the anesthetic, instead of kappa opioids, that leads to the difference of pain feeling and duration. Therefore, without ruling out or even(这里的even怎么读着觉得很多余呢？) considering the possible explanations, it would be groundless to attribute the difference of experiencing pain to gender.Thirdly, the effect of kappa opioids on patients who have their wisdom teeth extracted could not be hastily generalized to all conditions where pain medication is required. However,(前后没有转折的意思也） no evidence is offered to support the assumption.（前面说不能推及到所有使用止痛药的情况，没有提assumption啊，如果要用后面这句话，前面应该说the arguer assume that...could be hastily generalized to all condition...） Similarly, the effect of kappa opioids on pain feeling could not be hastily applied to all other pain medications. The underlying assumption operative(operating) in this inference is that kappa opioids on pain feeling is representative of all pain medications.Finally, granted that pain medications should be prescribed discriminatingly, it is not necessary to reevaluate the effects of all medication on men versus women. Even though there are some medications that should be prescribed discriminatingly, most (of) medicines are designed for general people.In sum, the argument relies on several ambiguous assumptions which render it unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should provide firm evidence about the credibility of the research. The author must also provide clear evidence that gender is (the) only factor that cause the different pain feelings. To better evaluate the argument, I would need more information about whether kappa opioids on pain feeling is typical of all pain medications. I would also need to know whether all medications should be treated differently for men and women.

这篇文章逻辑清晰，语言丰富，有很多好的词汇和句子值得学习，紫色的是好词和句子哈~~但是给偶感觉套模板痕迹重了点点，总得来说非常好哈~学习中……加油加油~~

weili0612UID: 2767606

TOPIC: ARGUMENT188 - A new report suggests that men and women experience pain very differently from one another, and that doctors should consider these differences when prescribing pain medications. When researchers administered the same dosage of kappa opioids-a painkiller-to 28 men and 20 women who were having their wisdom teeth extracted, the women reported feeling much less pain than the men, and the easing of pain lasted considerably longer in women. This research suggests that kappa opioids should be prescribed for women whenever pain medication is required, whereas men should be given other kinds of pain medication. In addition, researchers should reevaluate the effects of all medications on men versus women.
WORDS: 512 DATE: 2010-4-28 14:34:54

The author reaches his conclusion that kappa opioids is effective for women and other pain medication should be prescribed to men. To justify his conclusion, the author cites a study, concerning patients with wisdom teeth to be extracted, to manifest that different prescriptions, when it comes to different genders, should be made because of difference between men and women when experience pain. Yet, further speculation on the research will reveal how fallacious it is.

Firstly, lacking further information of the participants, the author cannot ensure me that the sample of the study is both sufficient and representative of all the patients who is going to have the wisdom teeth extracted. For that matter, it is entirely possible that some participants gets some congenital disease, such as hypalgesia, which render the patient not representative. It is also possible that the number of the participants is too low to generalize any conclusion from it. Either scenario, if true, would be reasonable enough to weaken the ratiocination of the argument considerably. Until the author provides prominent evidence that the sample is both typical and sufficient, I remain doubtful that this is the case.（样本数量问题）

Secondly, even assuming that the participants are both representative and sufficient, the argument still rests on the assumption that all the patients have the same standard for pain. Nonetheless, the author fails to corroborate this pivot assumption. For that matter, it is just as likely that pain experienced by men and women are the same, whereas different standard lead to different reports of pain. If that is the case, the effect kappa opioids casts on men and women may be the same, even though reports of pain from men and women are different. Thus, without eliminating possible reasons for the result of the study, the author cannot persuade me of the basis of the conclusion that effect of kappa opioids on men and women are different, let alone that men and women experience pain differently.（对疼痛没有个标准的定级）

Thirdly, even assuming that kappa does cast greater effect on women in the study, the author, without comparison, unfairly assumes that kappa is more effective than other pain medication. Yet, no convincing evidence is offered, which render the deduction unpersuasive as it stands. Moreover, we even assume that kappa is more effective, when dealing with pain result from extraction of wisdom teeth, than any other pain medications, but the author enlarges the extent of the conclusion. For that matter, it is possible that men and women only experience pain differently when it comes to pain result from teeth, in which case both different prescriptions and reevaluation are not necessary. Until the author cites compelling evidence that men and women experience pain, besides which comes from teeth, different, he cannot not convince me of his conclusion whatsoever.（将一个仅对牙齿实验的结果扩大到了所有止痛）

In sum, the article is lucid, however, untenable. The author, to strengthen the deduction, must provide evidence that the sample of the study is representative of all the patients who require pain medication. Moreover, he must offer a study which ensures me of the effectiveness of kappa opioids, comparing with other pain medications.

【】表示的是作者隐含假设的
1）同等剂量下的K，男性智齿患者所表现出的对于疼痛的反应要强于女性病人，且在女性患者上对于疼痛的缓解效果要长于男性—（不知道可否推出男女对于疼痛的体验是不同的）—》同等剂量K对于女性智齿病人有更好的效果【智齿病人可以代替所有需要缓解疼痛病人】——》k对于所有需要缓解疼痛的病人来说，在女性身上比在男性身上更有效果——》K比其他药物在需要缓解疼痛女性身上更加有效【K在男性上无法取得与在女性上的相同效果,而适用于男性的药应该取得和K在女性身上取得的相同的效果】——》应该给需要止痛药的男性其他的药物

2）K在男女身上的效果是不同的——》其他药物在男女身上的效果是不同的——》应该重新评价药物在男女身上的效果

个人觉得作者攻击的第二点不可以攻击，因为“When researchers administered the same dosage of kappa opioids—a painkiller—to 28 men and 20 women who were having their wisdom teeth extracted, the women reported feeling much less pain than the men, and the easing of pain lasted considerably longer in women.”这个是给你的材料：服药后，女的怎么了，男的怎了。如果你说这个错，就是说材料给错了。。。那后面还推什么啊，个人觉得Argument要攻击的应当是由现象推出结论的这个过程，推论究竟是否合理，而非给你的报告是对的还是错的。所以如果能找到更好的攻击点，样本数量问题要只要一笔带过，别写太多，写更有说服力的罗几点好了。
我刚看到一个人说ARGUMENT的：http://bbs.taisha.org/thread-641894-1-1.html

elevenkarUID: 2791267

98# weili0612
TOPIC: ARGUMENT188 - A new report suggests that men and women experience pain very differently from one another, and that doctors should consider these differences when prescribing pain medications. When researchers administered the same dosage of kappa opioids-a painkiller-to 28 men and 20 women who were having their wisdom teeth extracted, the women reported feeling much less pain than the men, and the easing of pain lasted considerably longer in women. This research suggests that kappa opioids should be prescribed for women whenever pain medication is required, whereas men should be given other kinds of pain medication. In addition, researchers should reevaluate the effects of all medications on men versus women.
WORDS: 512 DATE: 2010-4-28 14:34:54

The author reaches his conclusion that kappa opioids is effective for women and other pain medication should be prescribed to men. To justify his conclusion, the author （主语）cites a study, concerning patients with wisdom teeth to be extracted, to manifest that different prescriptions, when it comes to different genders, should be made（可能我功力尚浅，觉得如果把should be made放在when it comes to different genders,前我更好理解一些）because of difference between men and women when experience pain. Yet, further speculation on the research will reveal how fallacious（好词儿） it is.

Firstly, lacking further information of the participants, the author cannot ensure me（有这种用法么。。。我没查到。。。） that the sample of the study is both sufficient and representative of all the patients who is（are） going to have the wisdom teeth extracted. For that（this是不是更流畅些） matter, it is entirely possible that some participants gets some congenital disease（已存入新学词汇）, such as hypalgesia, which render the patient not representative.（这个例子用来攻击很好） It is also possible that the number of the participants is too low（low一般不用来形容number）to generalize any conclusion from it. Either scenario, if true, would be reasonable enough to weaken the ratiocination of the argument considerably. Until the author provides prominent evidence that the sample is both typical and sufficient, I remain doubtful（这是一个形容词，后面为何跟从句？我不确信你想表达的意思） that this is the case.（样本数量问题）

Secondly, even assuming that the participants are both representative and sufficient, the argument still rests on the assumption that all the patients have the same standard for pain. Nonetheless, the author fails to corroborate this pivot assumption. For that matter, it is just as likely that pain experienced by men and women are the same, whereas different standard lead to different reports of pain. If that is the case, the effect kappa opioids casts on men and women may be the same, even though reports of pain from men and women（可以用them来替换）
are different. Thus, without eliminating possible reasons for the result of the study, the author cannot persuade me of the basis of the conclusion that effect of kappa opioids on men and women are different, let alone that men and women experience pain differently.（对疼痛没有个标准的定级）

Thirdly, even assuming that kappa does cast greater effect on women in the study, the author, without comparison, unfairly assumes （assumed）that kappa is more effective than other pain medication. Yet, no convincing evidence is offered, which render the deduction unpersuasive（unpersuasive deduction） as it stands. Moreover, we（？）even assume that kappa is more effective, when dealing with pain result from extraction of wisdom teeth, than any other pain medications, but the author enlarges the extent of the conclusion. For that matter, it is possible that men and women only experience pain differently when it comes to pain result from teeth, in which case both different prescriptions and reevaluation are not necessary. Until the author cites compelling evidence that men and women experience pain, besides which comes from teeth, different, he cannot not convince me of his conclusion whatsoever.（将一个仅对牙齿实验的结果扩大到了所有止痛）这一点攻击是我没有想到的。你在中文上的陈述十分让人信服，英文上的论据支持少了一些。但这确实是一个很独到而引人入胜的视角

In sum, the article is lucid, however, untenable. The author, （加一个in order 你觉得如何） to strengthen the deduction, must provide evidence that the sample of the study is representative of all the patients who require pain medication. Moreover, he must offer a study which ensures me of the effectiveness of kappa opioids, comparing with other pain medications.（你严密的逻辑在这一段没有展现出来噢！是否考虑把上文中的分析都点到为止的回顾一下，让主考官再次为你的创新性眼前一亮？）

【】表示的是作者隐含假设的
1）同等剂量下的K，男性智齿患者所表现出的对于疼痛的反应要强于女性病人，且在女性患者上对于疼痛的缓解效果要长于男性—（不知道可否推出男女对于疼痛的体验是不同的）—》同等剂量K对于女性智齿病人有更好的效果【智齿病人可以代替所有需要缓解疼痛病人】——》k对于所有需要缓解疼痛的病人来说，在女性身上比在男性身上更有效果——》K比其他药物在需要缓解疼痛女性身上更加有效【K在男性上无法取得与在女性上的相同效果,而适用于男性的药应该取得和K在女性身上取得的相同的效果】——》应该给需要止痛药的男性其他的药物
2）K在男女身上的效果是不同的——》其他药物在男女身上的效果是不同的——》应该重新评价药物在男女身上的效果
个人觉得作者攻击的第二点不可以攻击，因为“When researchers administered the same dosage of kappa opioids—a painkiller—to 28 men and 20 women who were having their wisdom teeth extracted, the women reported feeling much less pain than the men, and the easing of pain lasted considerably longer in women.”这个是给你的材料：服药后，女的怎么了，男的怎了。如果你说这个错，就是说材料给错了。。。那后面还推什么啊，个人觉得Argument要攻击的应当是由现象推出结论的这个过程，推论究竟是否合理，而非给你的报告是对的还是错的。所以如果能找到更好的攻击点，样本数量问题要只要一笔带过，别写太多，写更有说服力的罗几点好了。
我刚看到一个人说ARGUMENT的：http://bbs.taisha.org/thread-641894-1-1.html


我觉得你的逻辑严密而富有创新性，让我阅文后拍案惊奇，自叹不如。从你的文章中可以看出你有非常认真的作文，有审阅批改的痕迹。这一点更是需要让我虚心学习。
呵呵，希望你语言功底尚需加强，若是语法精准，用词准确的行文再加上你的思路，你的文章定会百尺竿头，更进一步！ Fighting--eleven

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

第六次作业  ISSUE18
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
作者观点：
1．一个报告显示男人和女人对于痛觉的承受程度不同
2．对28个男的和20个女在其拔智齿时使用K止痛药，女人反映觉得没有男人觉得痛，且镇痛效果久。
1+2→只要女人需要用止痛药就用K，而男人必须用其他的止痛药。且所有的药都需要重新测试男人与女人的而不同反应。
反对观点：
1．
实验样本不够。未排除其他干扰变量。实验结果没有说服力。
2．
只研究了对于拔智齿的疼痛情况就推广到所有需止痛药的情况是不合理的
3．
单一的强调使用K药是不合理的。比如副作用。
1+2+3→作者观点不成立

忘说了  大概写了1个到1个半小时~ 还加上蛮多copy的...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grounding on a report that men and womenexperience pain very differently, and synthesizing a research indicating womendo feel less pain when give the same dosage of kappa opioids while having theirwisdom tooth extracted, the arguer suggested （that）all women should be use(语法小错) kappa opioidswhenever they need a pain killer but all men should find and use anothermedicine. Moreover, the arguer recommended the effects of all medications onmen versus women should be reevaluated.
However, it is apparently unscientific to getthe assertion（好用法） without the guarantee that the women and men are ofthe similar conditions, which include age, career, and health conditions. Thepremises of an scientific study requires the basic elements of a rigorous (好词) biological test including “hypothesis”、“unitary variable”、”experimental and control group”, which (is) also the three basic principle of a biologicaltest, and we can easily tell that the research above involves everything exceptthe “unitary variable”. The principle of “unitary variable” lay emphasis on theexclusion of “irrelevant variable” which could cause “extraneous variable”,suppressing interference while verifying hypothesis. What if the most of thewomen in the research having given birth? This means they have suffered a much more（不知道这个用法可不可以啊） pain comparing to the painbrought by the extraction of wisdom tooth, and then are more endurable whenfacing the latter than those men does. And with a possibility that some of thewomen may have a poor economic condition, thus they have to endure kinds of slightpain for the out of pocket. In this circumstance, the women are likely toreport less pain reaction than men does too. 【对于其中插入的3个基本原则，让人耳目一新，有机会要请教一下】
Even the conditions of patients in two groups are similar enough to suppress the interference（赞一下）; the number of theexperimental subjects also counts a lot. According to Statistics, the man-madefatal mistake of taking only 28 men and 20 women as experimental subject has lead（led） to the lost ofstatistical regularity(好用法), which lessen the reliability of theassertion. However, Gregor Mendel-- the father of modern genetics--affirmed histwo basic laws after 8 years study of cross experiment of pea which involvedmillions of experimental subject. Nor to say that statisticians toss the coinover ten thousand times only to reveal the simple fact that roughly half willcome up heads and half tails. Comparing to those famous experiments, the resultof the research in the argument is obviously of little credibility.【这个小错误是不是可以换成其他比较严重的错误呢？毕竟时间有限，这个一笔带过如何？】
What’s more, granting that （找到了even assuming 的替换）thosedefects above can’t resist the right conclusion of the research, it is notscience-based enough to recommend all women to take kappa opioids whenever painkiller is needed, nor to say suggest men to search for another medicine. As weall know, every medicine that prescribed for the patients should endure test formillions of times, especially those could cause some side effects including theantibiotics. Nonetheless, pain killers are actually oneof the army of medicines（收下了） that could cause seriously side effects.
Besides（赞） nausea and vomiting, the patient whotakes pain killer may developed physical dependence and became drug resistance.At it worst, respiratory depression is the most dangerous one the patientshould suffer. So before we have convincing evidence attesting that kappaopioids may cause fewer side effects when having the same easing effect, we arenot reason enough to promote the use of kappa opioids.
In a similar way, more researches should be conducted aim to find the whetherthe kappa opioids is suit for men patients or not.
In a sum, this argument is full of unscientific flaws according to theprinciple of a strict experiment, Statistics and common sense. To exclude them, the author needs more researches,experimental subject and consideration to provide convincing proof to supportthe argument.

词与语法的问题，我在文章中已经用颜色标记出来了。词与句的运用十分新颖，让我受益匪浅。接下来主要我是讨论你的文章结构与论证思路。总体上，你有以下几出需要提高：
1 每段的开头对于逻辑问题的归纳和描述有一些不具体。比如，第一段，你说的是文章没有保证男女处在同一CONDITION，但是这样是否有一些过于宽泛呢。我觉得，你可以说文章在进行对比时是建立于男女都用相同的标准去衡量疼痛的假设之上的。通过比较清晰地描述，或许可以更加犀利地去攻击错误。

2 问题的攻击力度在后面稍显不够，相信你自己也有感觉到。其实文章后面的主观推断是十分多的，我觉得这里才是需要集中火力攻击的。

最后，有个问题想请教一下，你的文章中所用的例子是受到其他高手文章的启发想出来的么？看到你这样的写法，给了我很强的灵感。希望不吝赐教。

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

第六次作业  ISSUE18
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
作者观点：
1．一个报告显示男人和女人对于痛觉的承受程度不同
2．对28个男的和20个女在其拔智齿时使用K止痛药，女人反映觉得没有男人觉得痛，且镇痛效果久。
1+2→只要女人需要用止痛药就用K，而男人必须用其他的止痛药。且所有的药都需要重新测试男人与女人的而不同反应。
反对观点：
1．
实验样本不够。未排除其他干扰变量。实验结果没有说服力。
2．
只研究了对于拔智齿的疼痛情况就推广到所有需止痛药的情况是不合理的
3．
单一的强调使用K药是不合理的。比如副作用。
1+2+3→作者观点不成立

忘说了  大概写了1个到1个半小时~ 还加上蛮多copy的...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grounding on a report that men and womenexperience pain very differently, and synthesizing a research indicating womendo feel less pain when give the same dosage of kappa opioids while having theirwisdom tooth extracted, the arguer suggested （that）all women should be use(语法小错) kappa opioidswhenever they need a pain killer but all men should find and use anothermedicine. Moreover, the arguer recommended the effects of all medications onmen versus women should be reevaluated.
However, it is apparently unscientific to getthe assertion（好用法） without the guarantee that the women and men are ofthe similar conditions, which include age, career, and health conditions. Thepremises of an scientific study requires the basic elements of a rigorous (好词) biological test including “hypothesis”、“unitary variable”、”experimental and control group”, which (is) also the three basic principle of a biologicaltest, and we can easily tell that the research above involves everything exceptthe “unitary variable”. The principle of “unitary variable” lay emphasis on theexclusion of “irrelevant variable” which could cause “extraneous variable”,suppressing interference while verifying hypothesis. What if the most of thewomen in the research having given birth? This means they have suffered a much more（不知道这个用法可不可以啊） pain comparing to the painbrought by the extraction of wisdom tooth, and then are more endurable whenfacing the latter than those men does. And with a possibility that some of thewomen may have a poor economic condition, thus they have to endure kinds of slightpain for the out of pocket. In this circumstance, the women are likely toreport less pain reaction than men does too. 【对于其中插入的3个基本原则，让人耳目一新，有机会要请教一下】
Even the conditions of patients in two groups are similar enough to suppress the interference（赞一下）; the number of theexperimental subjects also counts a lot. According to Statistics, the man-madefatal mistake of taking only 28 men and 20 women as experimental subject has lead（led） to the lost ofstatistical regularity(好用法), which lessen the reliability of theassertion. However, Gregor Mendel-- the father of modern genetics--affirmed histwo basic laws after 8 years study of cross experiment of pea which involvedmillions of experimental subject. Nor to say that statisticians toss the coinover ten thousand times only to reveal the simple fact that roughly half willcome up heads and half tails. Comparing to those famous experiments, the resultof the research in the argument is obviously of little credibility.【这个小错误是不是可以换成其他比较严重的错误呢？毕竟时间有限，这个一笔带过如何？】
What’s more, granting that （找到了even assuming 的替换）thosedefects above can’t resist the right conclusion of the research, it is notscience-based enough to recommend all women to take kappa opioids whenever painkiller is needed, nor to say suggest men to search for another medicine. As weall know, every medicine that prescribed for the patients should endure test formillions of times, especially those could cause some side effects including theantibiotics. Nonetheless, pain killers are actually oneof the army of medicines（收下了） that could cause seriously side effects.
Besides（赞） nausea and vomiting, the patient whotakes pain killer may developed physical dependence and became drug resistance.At it worst, respiratory depression is the most dangerous one the patientshould suffer. So before we have convincing evidence attesting that kappaopioids may cause fewer side effects when having the same easing effect, we arenot reason enough to promote the use of kappa opioids.
In a similar way, more researches should be conducted aim to find the whetherthe kappa opioids is suit for men patients or not.
In a sum, this argument is full of unscientific flaws according to theprinciple of a strict experiment, Statistics and common sense. To exclude them, the author needs more researches,experimental subject and consideration to provide convincing proof to supportthe argument.

词与语法的问题，我在文章中已经用颜色标记出来了。词与句的运用十分新颖，让我受益匪浅。接下来主要我是讨论你的文章结构与论证思路。总体上，你有以下几出需要提高：
1 每段的开头对于逻辑问题的归纳和描述有一些不具体。比如，第一段，你说的是文章没有保证男女处在同一CONDITION，但是这样是否有一些过于宽泛呢。我觉得，你可以说文章在进行对比时是建立于男女都用相同的标准去衡量疼痛的假设之上的。通过比较清晰地描述，或许可以更加犀利地去攻击错误。

2 问题的攻击力度在后面稍显不够，相信你自己也有感觉到。其实文章后面的主观推断是十分多的，我觉得这里才是需要集中火力攻击的。

最后，有个问题想请教一下，你的文章中所用的例子是受到其他高手文章的启发想出来的么？看到你这样的写法，给了我很强的灵感。希望不吝赐教。

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

Issue 50

In order to improve thequality of instruction at the college and university level, all faculty shouldbe required to spend time working outside the academic world in professionsrelevant to the course they teach.
With the fast change speedof our society, we have to update our knowledge in order to catch up with thetime. Grounding on this trend, thesuggestion to ask faculty （to） workoutside the academic world is inescapable from the angle both facultiesthemselves and students who received education.【观点：有必要提高教学质量，并且校外工作这一建议需要从学生和老师两个角度考虑】

Working outside will servefor the improving of instruction quality in several aspects. It is easy for usto find that most of the fence between college and society has been pulled downin western countries, however, the thought was not beyond the campus. Based onthis phenomenon, many successful people in difference (t) businesses come to first-class university to give lecture and eventake some specific part-time job. For example, several presidents of banks andcompanies were invited to be honorary professor of economics for their strongapplication of the knowledge in textbooks. It has already illustrates a highpressure for the faculty only work in the academic field. No matter professorsor instructors, they all need to update their knowledge with the changeableworld, and only (by) hold(ing) the freshest knowledge the college and university can (这里要倒置一下吧) prove their quality of teaching ultimately.【在校园外工作在提高教育质量方面有一定作用】
In addition, as the CEO ofapple company, Steve Jobs ever said that information is knowledge, theconnection with outside world will provide the faculty and students a new statewhich will not limited to campus. It has been a question for manyeducationalists that what does higher education do for most citizens? Theanswers by most people who received the higher education are that they want toget a better job or their own career. This expectation demand faculty work outof the academic world, and only through this way college faculty will getworking experience in relevant professions in order to help students adjustfrom campus to the job market. What’s more, the application of knowledge ismore complicated than what present in textbooks, while the process need a guidewho could do any proposals before. If a college or university lacks of facultywho have no working experience, the students there will lose at the beginning.【并且校园外工作可以给师生另外的一些好处】
Even the necessity of working outside has been discussed above, while【感觉这么用有点不对even …while …】 the chosen of what kind of faculty should work outside should be investigated.Asto
(赞) the aim ofhigher education talk over before, there must be exist some people who want tohave further study in their own field. For this sort of professors andstudents, the practice of working out of academic world will distribute theirfocus on studies and researches. Despite to
(of) this situation, the advantagesof working outside are based on fulfilling of theirwork in academic world, going too far is as bad as not going far enough,meaning redundant outside work may do harm to instruction.【然而并不是所有领域的老师都是需要再校外工作的】
In sum, the importance ofworking outside cannot be denied, however, the balance of the working outsideand inside are more essential. Only through a way which each part of them playa appropriate proportion, the goal that improve the quality of instruction willbe achieved. What I want to recommend at last is that the chosen of relevantjob also need to pay attention, cause(是否有一些口语化呢？) theselection of job will response to the experience which will effectual or not.

文章中有一些小错误我已经帮你挑出来了，多注意一点估计就不会犯这样的错误啦。
我对你问章的内容作了一下归纳：
1 在校园外工作在提高教育质量方面有一定作用
2 并且校园外工作可以给师生另外的一些好处
3 然而并不是所有领域的老师都是需要再校外工作的

首先，我对你第一段中校外人士在校园内工作这一例子能否很好的表达你的第一段的主题产生怀疑，因为你这段应该阐述校内人士在校外对于教学质量的提高有何帮助。

其次，第三段的内容是否有一些单薄了呢？如果再丰富一点的话会使你的文章增色不少。

第三，教学质量是否可以定义一下呢，这样也许会更加有利于你的论证。

最后，用词很不错，让我很受启发，ISSUE的感觉已经出来了，赞一下。

lxklysUID: 2738043

92# toywang   argu188  修改bylxklys
反驳点：1对different的表述是模糊的，没有具体标准

           2 意识到性别差异，但对药物选择却只注重k药

           3重新评估的必要性以及如何评估的反驳

In this argument, the writer argues that male and female have different feeling(feelings，当表示感觉的时候，是可数名词；当表示知觉的时候，是不可数的) about pain, and take one specific kind of pain medication to testify the difference, and even drawn an conclusion that a reevaluation is needed without any unified standard. The comparison made by the arguer is lack of one fixed norm or criterion which is a hidden trouble when it comes to the end. The outline of the flaws is listed, and I will disuses it one by one.

To begin with, the author mentions that men and women have distinct feeling about pain. This assertion is unconvincing in two aspects. First, there were never been two leaves entirely same in the world,（这种写法蛮好的，学着）so we have no reason to believe that there exists two people have same perception about pain even of the same sexuality.（这一个理由我觉得有失妥当，因为作为一个普遍真理，作者肯定也知道，他的前提也肯定包括矛盾的特殊性 ）Secondly, the arguer does not elaborate it clearly what do the differences are（这句话是不是有语病，do是不是应该去掉，然后加一个副词）. They are of different types of pain or the length of lasting time. What’s more, the judgment of pain is subjective, so the formulation of a fixed standard is the premise of the comparison what comes next.

Furthermore, the general difference is the foundation, however, the arguer only realized the difference between male and female but ignored the discrepancy（这个词主要用于“在事实和宣称之间的差异”，我感觉用在这里不太合适，换做distinction吧） among pain medications. Hence（加一个词过渡吧），The chosen of kappa opioids which is a kind of painkiller cannot represent the function of all pain medications. And there must be possible that kappa opioids has a strong effect on women’ tenderness only and do(is) not useful when people got a headache or stomachache. This is common sense that no medication can kill all kinds of disease, and so does it to pain. In this circumstance(under such circumstances最好用这个，感觉更符合英语表达习惯), the conclusion that kappa opioids should be prescribed for women when they got any kind of pain is ridiculous.

Finally, even the research has many flaws and unbelievable in some degree（unbelievable应该加个is， in some degree应该换成 to some degree）, but we still need to pay attention on the suggestion in the end. What the author’s proposal is that reevaluate(reevaluating) the effects of all medication on men versus women. Granted on that pain medications should be prescribed discriminatingly, the necessity of reevaluating the effects of all medications on them is unwarranted.
On one hand the proposal is not feasible, cause all medication is unimaginable(这句话是什么意思啊). On the other hand, what need to investigate（be investigated） is the verified function of difference sorts of pain medications they have on male and female. And through this way , researcher have to analyses what are the difference and fixed a standard for the judgment.

After the discussion above, it is easier to find the problems which hidden behind the surface and (这个主语是啥)will elaborate it clearly what is the right direction to do comparison. When we do researches we also need to pay attention of the logical items despite of the only concern about what seems persuaded.

总结：
这篇文章楼主根据所列的提纲一一进行反驳论证
所找的点都比较明确
关于问题，主要有以下几个
1.有的论据理由不足（上文有标出）
2.有些句子表达上不太地道，然后有些过渡转折得注意一下；
3.有些语法和单词错误，不过比上次我改楼主的文章时好多了O(∩_∩)O
欢迎交流，加油加油

toywangUID: 2700880

argue188 by Cynthia
In this report, the author claims that all medications should be reevaluate the effect on men versus women, since kappa opioids, a painkiller, revealed different effect on pain feeling between men and women according to a study administered among wisdom teeth extracted patients. 【我一直在想第一段前面到底是总结内容还是把反驳的点列出来？】This argument which seems logical at first glance, is problematic for several fallacies. [最后一句像是模板]

To support the conclusion, the arguer cites a result of a study which administered among wisdom teeth extracted patients. However, the reliability of this study remain[remains] questionable. On one hand, the sample might not be representative enough to reach in a credible result, since the number of patients engaged in the study is low, and no sign of such procedures for random sampling is mentioned. On the other hand, the level of pain which is merely reported by patients might not represent the real level of pain, since different patients might have different standards for evaluate pain level.【这里的两点，我觉得第一个的攻击力度较弱，第二个可以详细描述，以便用来支撑】

Even if one accepts the result of this questionable study, the arguer's statement is still unconvincing, since there might be other reasons which are responsible for the different pain feeling between men and women after use the same dosage of kappa opioids. It is possible that men are sensitive than women to pain feeling physiologically, so the difference would happen after administering all kinds of pain medicines, not limited to kappa opioids. Another reason might lead to the result is that the average body weight of men is usually heavier than women, as a result the same dosage of kappa opioids might cause lower blood drug concentrate with men than it is with women, thus it is obviously that women would feel less pain than men. 【这个原因好细致啊】The arguer would have to rule out other factors which might relevant to the result of the study to make his or her statement acceptable.

Finally, granted that the different pain feelings between men and women is truly caused by the drug effect of kappa opioids and pain medicines should be prescribed respectively, the assertion that all the medicines' effect should be reevaluated is groundless. The necessity and the feasibility of reevaluating all the drugs are no doubt questionable.【为什么no doubt 呢？要explain 一下吧。尤其是在总结的时候还说sufficient reason 。这里更有必要解释那些reason啊】

In conclusion, this argument is unconvincing for some logical fallacies. The arguer would have to provide more evidence to justify the reliability of the study which was cited to support the arguer's statement. To better evaluate the argument, the arguer would have to rule out other factors which might responsible for the different pain feeling between men and women. In addition, the conclusion, which is drawn through the study of one painkiller, should not be extend to all medicines without sufficient reasons.

1 整体行文还蛮流畅的。我觉得也有阅读的套路，我不知道现在形成套路到底好不好，还说依然要创新

2 对攻击点的选择可以选择更加强烈点的，而抛弃那些百试不爽的攻击点比如说样本不可信啊，等等的。

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

TOPIC: ARGUMENT35 - The following appearedin the summary of a study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia.


"Salicylates are members of the samechemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. Although manyfoods are naturally rich in salicylates, for the past several decadesfood-processing companies have also been adding salicylates to foods aspreservatives. This rise in the commercial use of salicylates has been found tocorrelate with a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported byparticipants in our twenty-year study. Recently, food-processing companies havefound that salicylates can also be used as flavor additives for foods. Withthis new use for salicylates, we can expect a continued steady decline in thenumber of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia."
WORDS: 509        


The author concludes that a stead declinein the number of headaches suffered by the average citizens in Mentia. Groundingon the fact that decline in the number of headaches correlates withsalicylates' adding to food as preservative. Yet, further reflection on theargument will reveal that the ratiocination is unjustified.


At first place, correlation based on theresearch is little indication that increase in the amount of salicylates infood is responsible for the drop, even though the sample of the study may notbe representative and sufficient, in the number of headaches. Since the amountog salicylates in food is not the only factor which contributes to thefrequency of headaches, it is entirely possible that other factors, such aschange in the living habits, serve to the decline, in which case rise in theamount of salicylates has little, if any, to do with the drop. Moreover,lacking evidence that people in Mentia eats food with preservatives frequently,it is just as likely that people in Mentia prefer health food, which, if true,is reasonable enough to weaken the basis of the conclusion that augmentation inthe amount of salicylates attribute to the drop in the number of headaches.


Secondly, even granting that salicylates’adding into food led to the decrease in the frequency of headaches, theconclusion still relies on the assumption that a majority of residents inMentia will probably prefer foods with flavor additives. Yet, the author failsto corroborate this pivot assumption, in which case it is not presumptuous toassume that people, who are conscious of healthy life style, in Mentia hatesfoods with flavor additives. For that matter, few people will buy food withflavor additives made from salicylates, even conceding that all food withflavor additives contain salicylates. Thus, until the author ensures me thatpeople in Mentia prefer food with such flavor additives, I remain doubtfulabout the conclusion.


Thirdly, the author implies in the summarythat salicylates will be used as flavor additives for a long time. However,without eliminating possibility that another medicine which is cheaper thansalicylates can also be used as flavor additives, the researcher cannot easilyreaches his implication. For that matter, it is possible that other kinds ofmedicine, as is cheaper and have little side effect, are more qualified forbeing used as flavor additives while such medicine cast on effect on residentsheadache, which, if true, will not led to continuous decline in the number ofheadaches. Therefore, without comparing other alternatives with salicylates,the arguer cannot manifest that salicylates, which may cause continuous declinein the number of headaches, will surely be used as flavor additives.


To sum up, the argument suffers from thedeficiency of hasty deduction, which render it unconvincing as it stands. Theauthor, in order to better validate the argument, must cites study aboutresidents' preference of food with preservatives and flavor additives. He mustalso compare salicylates with other alternatives, in order to justify thatfood-processing companies will certainly use it as flavor additives.

cynthia313UID: 2765794

argue35 by Cynthia
逻辑链：
1.Salicylates（简称S）是aspirin（A）的同系物，而A是治疗头痛的药物，推出S能预防头痛
2.S用的越来越多了，M镇人头痛减少了
3.M镇头痛减少是因为S

攻击点：
1.S不一定具有预防头痛的作用：a.同一个family的化合物不一定具有相同作用；b.就算S和A一样能治疗头痛，也没有证据表明它能预防头痛
2.其它可能引起头痛发生率减少的因素未被排除：环境变好了，其它食品添加剂作用等
3.含有S的食品使用范围.如果不是Majority都在吃S食物的话，也不能说头痛减少是S造成的


In this argument, the arguer claims the increasing use of a group food preservatives--salicylates, which are in the same family of a headache treating medication--aspirin, is responsible for the decline of the average number of headaches among residents of Mentia. Moreover,  the arguer forecasts the continued decrease of headaches since  salicylates are used as flavor additives for foods recently. This argument is unconvincing for several logical fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer unreasonably assumes that all the compounds in a same chemical family have the same function. However, no direct evidence is provided to justify salicylates could cure headaches as its analog. It is possible that salicylates have some other effect rather than treating headache, or they have no physiological effect at all. Even if one accept the assumption that salicylates could cure headaches, the conclusion, which base on the assumption that they could prevent headaches, is unreasonable.

In the second place, the arguer fails to rule out other factors which might caurse the decrease of the headaches. It is possible that the environment of Mentia continuously improved during past decades, which would obviously have benefits on residents' health, consequently, the number of headaches declined. It is equally possible that other food additives, which are also increasingly used, have the effect of preventing headaches, rather than salicylates. Without ruling out other factors which might responsible for the decline of headaches, the arguer's claim that it is increasing use of salicylates which causes the number of headaches cutting down is strongly weakened.

Last but not least, the arguer dose not mention how many citizens of Mentia are taking foods with salicylates added. Perhaps, the salicylates are only added to a kind of food which is not popular in residents of Mentia. Thus, only a little part of individuals are in the increasing use of salicylates, which will not explain the declining of the number of headaches. To strengthen this argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence to justify the majority individuals of Mentia are taking the salicylates added foods.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer would have to provide more evidence to demonstrate that salicylates do have the function of preventing headaches. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to rule out other factors which might lead to the number of headaches decreasing. To better evaluate, we would have to make sure majority of Menia citizens are taking salicylate added food.

weili0612UID: 2767606

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."
1、Salicylates可治疗头痛，近20年头痛人少了-》Salicylates的功劳
2、Salicylates准备用于调味添加剂->头痛的人更少啦
This argument concludes that with the expansive use of salicylates, which is used to treat headaches, it is possible that the number of headaches in Mentia will decline. This conclusion is at first glance reasonable. However, with further thinking and analysis, this article is not so logical in some aspects.
Firstly, the writer infers that the past twenties year’s decline of headaches is for the use of adding salicylatesto food as preservatives. However, without further analysis and ruling out other reasons, we can’t accept it easily. It is also said that many food are naturally rich in salicylates. So many people’s daily ingestion of sakucylates may be enough to treat headaches, which can be healed by salicylates. And the decline of headaches, which can’t be healed by salicylates, is because of the advancement of technology and people’s accustoms’ change. In conclusion, the adding use of salicylates may not cause the past twenty years’ headache decline.
Even it is true that salicylates can treat headache, the new use for salicylates will decline the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia. As is known to all, abuse of everything, which is sometimes helpful to our health, can induce negative effects. Even over drink of water will cause water poison, saying nothing of salicylates, which is a kind of aspirin. And over use medication will also cause its invalidation for antibody producing by ourselves. Even worse, the new use of salicylates may cause the increasing number of headaches in Mentia.
In sum, whether the past use of salicylates help to reduce the number of headaches is still unknown. If the author can certify it with more figures and reports to rule out other possibilities, I will accept it. And the new use's advantage or disadvantage to the treatment of headache can't be concluded so rashly. We should do more researches and make further analysis to ensure it. So without more information and research about salicylates, I don’t recognize this report.