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

elevenkarUID: 2791267

逻辑链攻击：
1水杨酸与阿斯匹林同族+食物放了水杨酸--à头痛减少是因为水杨酸
作者会这么推断是基于：
（1）同族的化学效用一定相同
（2）食物放了水杨酸，头痛人数减少同时发生，则水杨酸导致了头痛人数减少。

各点攻击如下：
（1）同族的化学效用不一定相同
（2）食物放了水杨酸，头痛人数减少。只是时间上的一致性，没有因果关系。可以从以下几点攻击
           <1>有可能食物加了水杨酸，这种食物是否本身可以抑制头痛
           <2>加了水杨酸的食物里还加了其他的什么添加剂，其他的添加剂是否可以抑制头痛？
           <3>水杨酸是否会和食物中其他食物反映生成其他的抑制头痛的物质？
           <4>人们的医疗保障，生活习惯是否变得更好而导致头痛少发？
2 可做香料的新用途——>头痛人数会继续减少
作者会这么推断是基于：
（1） 上一个推断是正确的。
（2）水杨酸多了可做香料的用途那么食品中添加水杨酸的几率和量都会增大。
（3） 食品中水杨酸的量多了，则人们摄入的水杨酸就多了
各点攻击如下：
（1）现在就算我承认你前面一个论断是正确的
（2）水杨酸多了可做香料的用途，食品中添加水杨酸的几率和量不一定会增大.
可做香料不代表人们就会选它做香料。作者没有介绍水杨酸做香料是否经济效益好。
（3）食品中水杨酸的量多了，则人们摄入的水杨酸不一定就多了
就算人们选它做香料了，那么人们对这些食品的购买量会保持原有水平或者增大么？由于这一点我们无从知晓，就算食品中水杨酸多了，人们摄入的水杨酸也不一定增多。

Date 2010-5-1
words 527
time 40min

正文部分：

The author of this summery states that the prevail in the commercial use of salicylates will knock-down the possibility of headache among citizen of Mentia . In addition, the author states that the new use of such chemical is as flavor additives. Finally, the author comes to the conclusion that there will be a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia. Under careful scrutiny, this argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

Firstly，Salicylates may not have the same effect as aspirin in treating headaches although they are of the same chemical family. This conjecture can be easily supported by our commonsensible knowledge in daily life. Ethyl alcohol and
methanol are members of same chemical family, however, ethyl alcohol is the main ingredient of esculent alcohol while only 10 milliliter methanol is lethal.

Secondly, the writer correlate the rise in the commercial use of salicylates with the decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in the twenty-year study but gives no causal linkage other than the similar time periods. The author does not inform us what fraction of foods consumed by citizens of Mentia contains salicylates, and what other kinds of additives had been add in the food. From which we can’t exclude the possibility that those food added salicylates could constrain headache on their own, or, other kinds of additive response with salicylates, producting new ingredients which can curse the headache. Moreover, the author fails to consider factors other than food, such as environment, lifestyle, Medicare etc. It is manifest that over twenty years’ development, people’s lifestyle and the infrastructure of Medicare must have changed a lot. It is precipitate recognition of linkage between salicylates and the decline in the average number of headaches without considering such kind of variable.

Although I admit that the use of salicylates are concretely correlated to the decline in the average number of headaches , it is rush for the author deducing that with the new use for salicylates as flavor , a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia will occur. Salicylates have the function of using as flavor does not equate that enterprise will definitely chose it as flavor of their food products. The economic benefits of it haven’t been mentioned which is the critical factor of a enterprise to determine whether they will use it or not. Moreover, even there are a large scale of food using salicylates as flavor, the consumption of those kinds of food is unknown, in other words, the amount of salicylates people take it into is a mystery that whether the number of people suffer from headache will decline is also uncharted.

In summary, the writer reaches his or her conclusions based on poorly interpreted information. Without providing direct evidence that people from the area suffered fewer headaches is directly by the taking of salicylates and the newer function of the chemical will lead to soar of salicylates consumption, the author can’t give the final judgment that the continued steady decline tendency of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia.

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

35The following appeared in the summary of a studyon headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia.

"Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, amedicine used to treat headaches. Although many foods are naturally rich insalicylates, for the past several decades food-processing companies have alsobeen adding salicylates to foods as preservatives. This rise in the commercialuse of salicylates has been found to correlate with a steady decline in theaverage number of headaches reported by participants in our twenty-year study.Recently, food-processing companies have found that salicylates can also beused as flavor additives for foods. With this new use for salicylates, we canexpect a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by theaverage 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 useof salicylates, which is used to treat headaches, it is possible that thenumber of headaches in Mentia will decline. This conclusion is at first glancereasonable. However, with further thinking and analysis, this article is not sological in some aspects.【重述题目，并且表示题目在某些方面无逻辑】


Firstly, the writer infers（好词） that the past twenties year’s decline of headaches is for the useof adding salicylates to food as preservatives. However, without furtheranalysis and ruling out other reasons, we can’t accept it easily. It is alsosaid that many food are naturally rich in salicylates. So many people’s dailyingestion of sakucylates may be enough to treat headaches, which can be healedby salicylates. And the decline of headaches, which can’t be healed bysalicylates, is because of the advancement of technology and people’saccustoms’ change. In conclusion, the adding use of salicylates may not causethe past twenty years’ headache decline.【S的使用与头痛的减少比一定有因果关系】

Even it is true that salicylates can treatheadache, the new use for salicylateswill decline the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia.（这句话没看懂） As is known to all, abuse ofeverything, which is sometimes helpful to our health, can induce（赞） negative effects. Even over drink of water will cause water poison,saying nothing of salicylates, which is a kind of aspirin. And over usemedication will also cause its invalidation for antibody producing byourselves. Even the worse, the new use of salicylates may cause the increasingnumber of headaches in Mentia.【即使使用S可以治愈头痛，过度使用S会造成相反的效果】


In sum, whether the past use of salicylates helpsto reduce the number of headaches is still unknown. If the author can certify it with morefigures and reports to rule out other possibilities, I will accept it. And thenew use's advantage or disadvantage to the treatment of headache can't beconcluded so rashly. We should do more researches and make further analysis to ensureit. So without more information and research about salicylates, I don’trecognize this report.

1总的来说这篇文章用词还是十分好的，也能看出你对Silent wing的句子教程有所涉猎。让步攻击也确实十分明显。而且攻击的错误也确实有价值。
2不过文章中间的攻击段落稍显单薄。而且作者文中有一处主观推断你可能忽略了。就是S被发现可以被用作FLAVOR ADDITIVES就一定表示它一定会被用作FLAVOR ADDITIVES么？不一定吧。至于其他的，我还没有想到什么。
3 对于水的那个举例是不是有一些不合适呢？

lxklysUID: 2738043

水杨酸和阿司匹林属于同以化学家族——》
水杨酸被用作事物保护剂的商业用途上升与为期20年的平均头疼次数下降相关

普通Mentia居民头疼次数将稳定下降
水杨酸可以作为食品添加剂——》

The statement in the summary of a study on headaches concludes that the number of citizens in Mentia suffered from headaches will decline, with the salicylates used in flavor additives. According to the salicylates are numbers of the same chemical family as aspirin and its rising use in the commercial, which correlate with a decline in the numbers of headache, the arguer deduces the conclusion.

Firstly, the given proof that salicylate is number of the same chemical family as aspirin do little help the statement. We concede that aspirin is often used to treat headaches, but we can’t deduce the salicylate also has this function just with the same chemical family. To justify a drug’s function bases on the characteristics and proportion of each chemical essence used, rather than its chemical family. For example, h2s and so2 is number of the same chemical family, but without a doubt, they’re so different in its function indeed.

Secondly, there doesn’t exits an inevitable correlation between the rise in the commercial use of salicylates and a decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in 20-year study. The speaker presents that salicylates are added to foods as preservatives for the past several decades, which means that average person may eat salicylates everyday, as a result, he deduces the decline of headaches in the study has a correlation with it certainly. Without enough information of the participants given, we can’t rule out other reasons may lead to it. Whether they use aspirin to militate headaches at the same time? Whether they are so young that the recovery is much better? Whether the participants are all from Mentia or has been lived here during 20-year? Had the arguer expounded them clearly, maybe the correlation made in the summary would have existed.

Finally, even if we concede that the correlation between the salicylates as preservatives and a decline number of headaches, we can’t deduce that as a flavor additive,the salicylate enables the numbers of headaches to decrease. Flavor additives are substances added to food to preserve flavor or improve its taste and appearance, while the preservatives may be antimicrobial preservatives, which inhibit the growth of bacteria and fungi and mold growth, or antioxidants such as oxygen absorbers, which inhibit the oxidation of food constituents. As a result, the new discovery that salicylates can be used as flavor additives may not verify the conclusion further.
In sum, the arguer fails to verify the statements. He confused the conception of chemical family, didn’t explicate the study clearly with the enough information of the participants, and looked the preservatives as same as the flavor additives, which is two different one in fact. So, under such circumstances, the statement fails to convince me with the fallacious reasonings.

toywangUID: 2700880

1 一个化学家族，不代表有同样的作用

2survey 的可信度太低

3 M城的概念是哪里冒出来的？

The arguer draw a conclusion that salibylates have effect on the cure the headache by a correlation survey. However, there are many flaws in it, on one hand, the survey dose not exclusive data of salibylates which only correlated with it. On the other hand, there is no logical sign to show if the salibylates are used as flavor additives, it can decline the number who suffered headache. The details of these flaws come after.

To begin with, the premise of the conclusion is that salicylates have the same function as aspirin which is widely used as analgetic. However, what the attribute of salicylates is just of the same chemical family as aspirin which is not enough to show that they have the same function. For example, adamas and graphite are composed of the same chemical elements, but they have totally different nature. In addition, even salicylates can treat headache as well, it cannot guarantee without side effects as aspirin does. With the function which is not affirmatory of salicylates, the conclusion drawn in the end must be unconvincing.

Granted that the salicylates have totally the same function as aspirin in treating headache, the survey is the main problem in different aspects. First, the salicylates are used as preservations means that it can preserve food turn bad, this application has no connection with headache. Then, the arguer directly say that salicylates has been found to correlate with a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in our twenty-year study. The survey lacks of many essential elements which persuaded us believe the result.

For instance, the number of people, the chosen of people, and the condition of the survey are all not specific and assured. Without these indispensable data, the arguer cannot directly say the salicylates contribute to the decline of the number of people who suffered headache.

What comes last is another conclusion that the decline of people who suffered headache in Mentia will decline because salicylates can be used as flavor addition. In the first place, the total text was not mention the strict of Mentia, and even the survey is not fixed in the area of Mentia, how can we assure Mentia has the same characteristic as the place where the survey does. In the second place, even salicylates can be used as flavor addition, n the second place, even salicylates can be used as flavor addition, the contribution of it to the steady decline of the number is doubtable because the dosage of it in foodstuff is fixed and cannot raise as people’ like. therefore, the discovery will not do good to the decline of the people who suffered headache.

To sum up, the arguer has omission many essential data when he or she elaborate the survey to the public which may lead to the unconvincing in the end. Only with a believable survey, the conclusion based on it will has effect.

xingfuhbjUID: 2769976

第七次作业  ARGUMENT 35
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
作者观点：
1．水杨酸酯和用来治疗头痛的药物--阿司匹林是同一类化合物
2．过去几十年中食品加工公司仍然在食品中加入它来作为防腐剂。
3．水杨酸酯在商业上的使用被发现与我们为期20年研究的参加者所报告的头痛发病的平均数量下降是相关的
1+2+3→当水杨酸酯被用作食品香料后，可以预期Mentia居民患头痛症的数量将会持续稳步下降
反对观点：
1．相关不代表S一定能减少头痛发病
2．通过食品添加剂和香料同时摄入S，是否使S摄入过量而导致副作用
3．如果不存在副作用，边际效用递减规律会导致效果不如之前明显，只有小幅下降
4．还有很多因素可能导致人头痛病发。未来压力的增大可能恶化疾病使得S的效果被抵消，人数可能不减反增
1+2+3+4→作者观点不成立
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grounding on the fact that Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches, then synthesizing a study which found a relation between the rise of salicylates for commercial use and a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in Mentia, the arguer asserted that after salicylates to be used as flavor additives for foods, there will be a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia. However, logic says otherwise.

Among the flaws that were overlooked by the arguer, the basic suggestion that the Salicylates may help to treat headaches deserved being called into question first. The premises of an scientific study requires the basic elements of a rigorous biological test including “hypothesis”、 “unitary variable”、”experimental and control group”, which also the three basic principle of a biological test. However, we can easily tell that the research in the argument just involved the “hypothesis”. Without a premise supplied by the three principles, the steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in Mentia is to a large extent the result of the well-improved health-care level, namely better medical technology that can help treating the headache, and favourable environment, or less survival pressure. According to this, Salicylates is hardly a substance which can help to treat the headaches.


Even against this background that the Salicylates do help, it is not a sensible decision to add a new way to absorb large amount of Salicylates with a neglecting of the possibility of overdose. As companies using Salicylates as flavor addictives, the amount of Salicylates that the residents of Mentia absorbed everyday will soared, in other words, it will lead to the overdose. However, there is no medicine without side effects in the world, and there do have poisoning caused by the excessive ingestion of salicylates. Besides, allergy is one of the side effects, nor to mention nausea and vomiting. In a word, the maximum amount of Salicylates that one person can absorbed per day should be well examined before companies using the Salicylates as a flavor addictive.

Granting that the new use of Salicylates will not cause obviously side effect, the law of diminishing marginal utility will tell us an answer different from the arguer’s, who expect a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia.
According to this economic law, as a person gets more to spend, he will buy things that give him less and less utility. This law is just adapted to the effect of all medicines. Hence, the increased intakes of Salicylates may not bring about a continued steady decline in the number of headaches but a less obviously one. What’s more, if the widely used of Salicylates caused a drug resistance, the arguer will stand no chance to expect the continued steady decline in the number of headaches. In addition, as the headaches all affected by kinds of subjective and objective factors, the arguer’s expectation still can’t be achieved if the environment of Mentia was deteriorated or the survival pressure of Mentia increased a lot.

Watching the argument from the sidelines, I am struck by how much it turns on a assertion that ought to be attested by the empirical evidence. The argument would be more favourable if the arguer involves more researches and consideration. Numerous facts had made it clear that to verifying a assertion, a strict experiment is required.

elevenkarUID: 2791267

" argue35 by Cynthia---eleven修改 2010年5月2日
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
（说实话。。。你跟我想到的攻击点是一样的。）
我认为有待改进的地方用红字标出，好词好句好逻辑用粗体与划线标出
其中一些对语法的替换，只是我的个人意见。不一定对，o(∩_∩)o…
In this argument, the arguer claims the increasing use of a group food preservatives（不是很明白是什么意思）--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 （应该是：continued decrease of number of headaches. Headaches 是头痛的事，头痛的意思，decrease修饰的是数字，而不是头痛本身这件事情）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 （curse？）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 does not mention how many citizens of Mentia are taking foods with salicylates added(added with salicylates 我不确定). 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 （increasingly using）salicylates, which will not explain the declining of the number of headaches. To strengthen this argument, the arguer would
have to(should) provide more evidence to justify the majority individuals of Mentia are(不晓得为何word给出提示这个are 应该变成is 我觉得还是are是对的) taking the salicylates added foods.（我查了韦氏、牛津、朗文、兰登。。。都没有明确说food在什么时候用复数，什么时候用单数。但是根据各本字典给出的事例我只找到了这样三个用复数的情况：frozen foods 速冻食品；baby foods.婴儿食品；various foods 各种各样的食品。所以我还是不知道，到底什么时候用复数，什么时候用单数，学姐如果确定，给我一个明示吧）
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.
啥都不说了，看完学姐的文章，特亲切。无论遣词造句和逻辑攻击，都觉得学姐和我的习惯很像，当然学姐做的更好，o(∩_∩)o… 逻辑方面因为跟我想的是一个样的，所以我无法客观评判啊~ 自我感觉这样的逻辑是很明了清晰的 o(∩_∩)o…
另外文中出现一些语法错误，虽然修改过程中有翻语法书核对，但我不确定是不是错了 。。。鄙人语法是supper菜鸟一只

觉得蛮不错的 赞美之词就隐去了 学姐加油！

elevenkarUID: 2791267

88# weili0612
188A 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.
一个实验25女，20男拔去智齿后（貌似组里有组员最近拔过么。。。），服用kappa opioids，男的感觉比较疼，女的缓解期比较长。所以，男女疼痛的经历不同（一个长期，一个剧烈,），所以开药时候要当心。这个实验也表明不论女的得什么病用止疼，都要用opioids，男的无论如何都要换药。另外，研究人员要重新评估各种用药物对男女的不同效果。
感觉本文就是1个实验推出三个结论，这三个结论到不是递进的，都是直接从那个报告中推出来的。
1疼痛不同，所以小心开药，因为那是要造成的（真的是因为药嘛）。
2疼痛不同，所以女的无论如何用opioid，男的死也别用。
3疼痛不同，因此研究人员要对所有的药在男女上的效果都重新评估下。
In this argument, the author concludes that women and men experience pain differently for the experiment of 28 men and 20 women who were having
（是否改为过去完成时更客观，你觉得呢？）their wisdom teeth extracted. And it is also asserted that kappa opioids should be prescribed for women whenever pain medication is required, men should given other kinds of pain medication and all medications on men versus women should be revaluated.（如果是我，我的写法是： the report also asserted that KO should be prescribed for women whenever pain medication is required while men should be given other kinds of medications. What’s more, the author gave another suggestion under the same reason of the previous assertion I mentioned before that all medications on men versus women should be revaluated. 只是试着重写了一下，对自己的修改还是很不满意的。我觉得weili同学应该注意一下句子内部的连接词） When seeing （when引导的是时间状语从句，后面应该不能直接跟ing动词吧）this argument at first sight, I find there are so many illogical and unreasonable conclusions （which）drawn form the report.

Firstly, because women felt much less pain than men and easing of pain lasted longer in women when using kappa opioids in the wisdom teeth extracted, the author asserts that they experience pain very differently from one anther（another）. However, the report didn’t rule out other possible reasons that may cause the different pain between men and women. For instance, the wisdom teeth extracted operation itself makes men feel more pain than women. Or even men’s wisdom teeth are normally bigger than women’s, which makes them for a heavier pain, but the weakness of women makes them recover slowly than men.

Secondly, the author also concludes kappa opioids should be prescribed for women whenever pain medication is required and men should be given other kinds of pain medication, which is not reasonable.
（which I suppose it is lack of positive evidence可能这样写稍微婉转一点）The report only is about the wisdom teeth extracted, not conclude all kind of disease or ill which need painkiller.(The report is only about the wisdom teeth extracted which haven’t concluded any other kinds of disease or illness needing painkillers.) If there is another disease which makes you pain and has negative effect when you have kappa opioids to kill pain, I am sure that a doctor can’t prescribe kappa opioids to women. And if there is no choice, for instance lack of medications, I think a doctor will prescribe kappa opioids to men. So I think it all depends and can’t ascertain by just one report.
Finally, it is no need for researchers to reevaluate the effects of all medications on men versus women. Whether it is the medication that makes men and women have different pain experience is still unknown. And even that is true, it doesn’t mean all other kinds of medication have different effects on men and women. The working theory and ingredients of different medication are surely different, doctors just need to finds what ingredients have different influence on men and women and reevaluate the effects of medications concluding such ingredients.
In sum, without ruling out other possibilities, the conclusions from the report are unreasonable and not cogent. Without more information and further analysis, I won’t accept this article anymore.

Weili同学的文章构架已经出来了。需要多多熟悉语法和连接词的使用。
个人感觉句式变化不够。用词也有点简单。我是不是有点严厉？o(∩_∩)o… 相信你多练就会有长足的进步的哦！到下次我改你的作文好好shock 一下我吧！加油加油哦！

xingfuhbjUID: 2769976

改第七次作业  ARGUMENT 35  Wwritten by yuanlingqinggre

WORDS: 509


The author concludes that a stead(y)(不要第一行就写错词啊~何况还是restate~) decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizens in Mentia. Grounding on the fact that decline in the number of headaches correlates with salicylates' adding to food as preservative. Yet, further reflection on the argument will reveal that the ratiocination is unjustified.
还是衷心建议作者不要嫌弃开头….你要是嫌弃开头…rater会嫌弃你的…

At first place, correlation based on the research is little indication that increase(s) in the amount of salicylates in food is responsible for the drop, even though the sample of the study may not be representative and sufficient,(第一句就搞个复杂的结构啊~,但是我没怎么理解啊,如果要说应该也是说样本具代表性吧?请指教~) in the number of headaches. Since the amount og(of) salicylates in food is not the only factor which contributes to the frequency of headaches(记着记着~,我写decline写的都要吐了~不过主要是因为懒得去换了~), it is entirely possible that(我觉得这里可以小改一下,比如加个 there are some,或者在serve to 前面加个also)other factors, such as change in the living habits, serve to the decline, in which case rise in the amount of salicylates has little, if any, to do with the drop.(我totally建议作者不要写太长的句子…虽然作者已经算写的很不错了~当然如果高人建议这样好的话我也没啥好说的~) Moreover, lacking evidence that people in Mentia eats food with preservatives frequently, it is just as(as有必要加么?) likely that people in Mentia prefer health food, which, if true, is reasonable enough to weaken the basis of the conclusion that augmentation in the amount of salicylates attribute to the drop in the number of headaches.
老美喜欢TS~ but作者第一个论点为了打造长句显然有些过长~不过我也不知道TS要突出是不是硬性规定,不过我还是建议作者再考虑考虑。
给个链接瞅瞅：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-783960-1-1.html
里面有说一些相关的

Secondly, even granting that salicylates’ adding into food led to the decrease in the frequency of headaches, the conclusion still relies on the(貌似这里用an会更好?) assumption that a majority of residents in Mentia will probably prefer foods with flavor additives. Yet, the author fails to corroborate this pivot assumption, in which case it is not presumptuous toassume(请教~这是不是说“作者没有考虑到…”?)
that people, who are conscious of healthy life style, in Mentia hates foods with flavor additives. For that matter, few people will buy food with flavor additives made from salicylates, even conceding that all food with flavor additives contain salicylates.(就算所有的实物都有S也不买?不懂~~请指教~) Thus, until the author ensures me that people in Mentia prefer food with such flavor additives, I remain doubtful about the conclusion.

Thirdly, the author implies in the summary that salicylates will be used as flavor additives for a long time. However, without eliminating possibility that another medicine which is cheaper than salicylates can also be used as flavor additives, the researcher cannot easily reaches his implication. For that matter, it is possible that other kinds of medicine, as is cheaper and have little side effect, are more qualified for being used as flavor additives while such medicine cast on effect on residents headache, which, if true, will not led to continuous decline in the number of headaches. (你真是Strong啊~一句话写这么多行~但是我真是觉得没必要哈~)Therefore, without comparing other alternatives with salicylates, the arguer cannot manifest that salicylates, which may cause continuous decline in the number of headaches, will surely be used as flavor additives.
我觉得这个攻击点真的挺奇怪的~
To sum up, the argument suffers from the deficiency of hasty deduction, which render(s) it unconvincing as it stands.(很漂亮的句子) The author, in order to better validate the argument, must cites study about residents' preference of food with preservatives and flavor additives. He must also compare salicylates with other alternatives, in order to justify that food-processing companies will certainly use it as flavor additives.(最后一句word显示有结构问题~作者再think一下吧~)

再次佩服一下作者能写这么多长句子~虽然个人不prefer太多的长句~
建议以后还是把逻辑链写出来~
偷偷的说:目前在组里改到的文~你算是写的最好的了~加油~UPP~(其他人要是不小心瞄到了不要打俺啊~~~一起加油啦~~!)

lxklysUID: 2738043

第七次作业  ARGUMENT 35
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
作者观点：
1．水杨酸酯和用来治疗头痛的药物--阿司匹林是同一类化合物
2．过去几十年中食品加工公司仍然在食品中加入它来作为防腐剂。
3．水杨酸酯在商业上的使用被发现与我们为期20年研究的参加者所报告的头痛发病的平均数量下降是相关的
1+2+3→当水杨酸酯被用作食品香料后，可以预期Mentia居民患头痛症的数量将会持续稳步下降
反对观点：
1．相关不代表S一定能减少头痛发病
2．通过食品添加剂和香料同时摄入S，是否使S摄入过量而导致副作用
3．如果不存在副作用，边际效用递减规律会导致效果不如之前明显，只有小幅下降
4．还有很多因素可能导致人头痛病发。未来压力的增大可能恶化疾病使得S的效果被抵消，人数可能不减反增
1+2+3+4→作者观点不成立
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grounding on the fact that Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches, then synthesizing a study which found a relation between the rise of salicylates for commercial use and a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in Mentia, the arguer asserted that after salicylates to be used as flavor additives for foods, there will be a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia. However, logic says otherwise(这个是native的表达吗？先收着).
Among the flaws that were overlooked by the arguer, the basic suggestion that the Salicylates may help to treat headaches deserved being(deserved to be,我查了一下deserve的用法，一般都为deserve to be done或者直接加名词) called into
question first. The premises of an scientific study requires the basic elements of a rigorous biological test including “hypothesis”、 “unitary variable”、”experimental and control group”,（这个下定义描述学着） which also the three basic principle of a biological test. However, we can easily tell that the research in the argument just involved the “hypothesis”.（xingfu,我有点不明白从哪儿可以看出来这个试验就仅仅涉及了假设呢？ ）Without a premise supplied by the three principles, the steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in Mentia is to a large extent the result of the well-improved health-care level, namely better medical technology that can help treating the headache, and favourable environment, or less survival pressure. According to this, Salicylates（这个应该改成salicylate） is hardly a substance which can help to treat the headaches.
Even against this background that the Salicylates do help, it is not a sensible decision to add a new way to absorb large amount of Salicylates with a neglecting of the possibility of overdose. As companies using Salicylates as flavor addictives,（根据句意，as应该是引导原因的，那么后面应该接一个完整的句子，具体用法可以参考http://jpkc.scezju.com/yytka/showindex/58/6） the amount of Salicylates that the residents of Mentia absorbed everyday will soared, in other words, it will lead to the overdose. However, there is no medicine without side effects（换成downside更地道些哈） in the world, and there do have poisoning caused by the excessive ingestion of salicylates. Besides, allergy is one of the side effects, nor to mention nausea（新词，学着）
and vomiting. In a word, the maximum amount of Salicylates that one person can absorbed per day should be well examined before companies using the Salicylates as a flavor addictive（flavor additives）.
Granting that the new use of Salicylates will not cause obviously side effect, the law of diminishing marginal utility will tell us an answer different from the arguer’s, who expect a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia.（边际效益理论都用上了，佩服！！！）
According to this economic law, as a person gets more to spend, he will buy things that give him less and less utility. This law is just adapted to the effect of all medicines. Hence, the increased intakes of Salicylates may not bring about a continued steady decline in the number of headaches but a less obviously one（这个没看懂）. What’s more, if the widely used of Salicylates caused a drug resistance, the arguer will stand no chance to expect the continued steady decline in the number of headaches. In addition, as the headaches all affected by kinds of subjective and objective factors, the arguer’s expectation still can’t be achieved if the environment of Mentia was deteriorated or the survival pressure of Mentia increased a lot.（我觉得这个理论论据可以搬到第一段去，用来论述那个试验可能存在的问题）
Watching the argument from the sidelines, I am struck by how much it turns on a（an） assertion that ought to be attested by the empirical evidence. The argument would be more favourable(favorable) if the arguer involves more researches and consideration. Numerous facts had made it clear that to verifying a（an） assertion, a strict experiment is required.

总结
首先逻辑比较清楚，关于作者的逻辑链诠释得十分到位，让我豁然开朗，说实话，我都没咋明白作者是怎么推理的；
从这篇文章中所涉及的一些专业知识也可看出你是花了时间和精力来写的，认真精神很是佩服；
段与段的连接比较好；
至于问题：
有些观点的论述不太清楚，也就是说论据有点不充分；
存在语法、单词错误，望注意

toywangUID: 2700880

水杨酸和阿司匹林属于同以化学家族——》
水杨酸被用作事物保护剂的商业用途上升与为期20年的平均头疼次数下降相关
普通Mentia居民头疼次数将稳定下降
水杨酸可以作为食品添加剂——》
The statement in the summary of a study on headaches concludes that the number of citizens in Mentia suffered from headaches will decline, with the salicylates used in flavor additives. According to the salicylates are numbers of the same chemical family as aspirin and its rising use in the commercial, which correlate with a decline in the numbers of headache, the arguer deduces the conclusion.

Firstly, the given proof that salicylate is number of the same chemical family as aspirin do little help the statement. We concede that aspirin is often used to treat headaches, but we can’t deduce that?the salicylate also has this function just with the same chemical family. [这句话说的很奇怪，不如but we cannot deduce that the salicylate has the same function even within the same chemical family ]To justify a drug’s function bases on the characteristics and proportion of each chemical essence used, rather than its chemical family. For example, h2s and so2 is number of the same chemical family, but without a doubt, they’re so different in its function indeed.

Secondly, there doesn’t exits [exist] an inevitable correlation between the rise in the commercial use of salicylates and a decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in 20-year study. The speaker presents that salicylates are added to foods as preservatives for the past several decades, which means that average person may eat salicylates everyday, as a result, he deduces the decline of headaches in the study has a correlation with it certainly. Without enough information of the participants given, we can’t rule out other reasons may lead to it. Whether they use aspirin to militate headaches at the same time? Whether they are so young that the recovery is much better? Whether the participants are all from Mentia or has been lived here during 20-year? [这些whether 换成do / does会不会好点？]Had the arguer expounded them clearly, maybe the correlation made in the summary would have existed.
虽然我也觉得疑问句能够加强语气，但是表达不好的话，最好还是换成陈述句比较好

Finally, even if we concede that the correlation between the salicylates as preservatives and a decline number of headaches, we can’t deduce that as a flavor additive,the salicylate enables the numbers of headaches to decrease. Flavor additives are substances added to food to preserve flavor or improve its taste and appearance, while the preservatives may be antimicrobial preservatives, which inhibit the growth of bacteria and fungi and mold growth, or antioxidants such as oxygen absorbers, which inhibit the oxidation of food constituents. As a result, the new discovery that salicylates can be used as flavor additives may not verify the conclusion further.

In sum, the arguer fails to verify the statements. He confused the conception of chemical family, didn’t explicate the study clearly with the enough information of the participants, and looked the preservatives as same as the flavor additives, which is two different one in fact. So, under such circumstances, the statement fails to convince me with the fallacious reasonings. 总结式结尾

可以看一下66关于让步的一个帖子 haven in flower 系列的

weili0612UID: 2767606

逻辑链攻击：
1水杨酸与阿斯匹林同族+食物放了水杨酸--à头痛减少是因为水杨酸
作者会这么推断是基于：
（1）同族的化学效用一定相同
（2）食物放了水杨酸，头痛人数减少同时发生，则水杨酸导致了头痛人数减少。
各点攻击如下：
（1）同族的化学效用不一定相同
（2）食物放了水杨酸，头痛人数减少。只是时间上的一致性，没有因果关系。可以从以下几点攻击
           <1>有可能食物加了水杨酸，这种食物是否本身可以抑制头痛
           <2>加了水杨酸的食物里还加了其他的什么添加剂，其他的添加剂是否可以抑制头痛？
           <3>水杨酸是否会和食物中其他食物反映生成其他的抑制头痛的物质？
           <4>人们的医疗保障，生活习惯是否变得更好而导致头痛少发？
2 可做香料的新用途——>头痛人数会继续减少
作者会这么推断是基于：
（1） 上一个推断是正确的。
（2）水杨酸多了可做香料的用途那么食品中添加水杨酸的几率和量都会增大。
（3） 食品中水杨酸的量多了，则人们摄入的水杨酸就多了
各点攻击如下：
（1）现在就算我承认你前面一个论断是正确的
（2）水杨酸多了可做香料的用途，食品中添加水杨酸的几率和量不一定会增大.
可做香料不代表人们就会选它做香料。作者没有介绍水杨酸做香料是否经济效益好。
（3）食品中水杨酸的量多了，则人们摄入的水杨酸不一定就多了
就算人们选它做香料了，那么人们对这些食品的购买量会保持原有水平或者增大么？由于这一点我们无从知晓，就算食品中水杨酸多了，人们摄入的水杨酸也不一定增多。
Date 2010-5-1
words 527
time 40min正文部分：

The author of this summery states that the prevail in the commercial use of salicylates will knock-down the possibility of headache among citizen of Mentia . In addition, the author states that the new use of such chemical is as flavor additives. (再加个which XXX，使得20年来头痛人数减少了) Finally, the author comes to the conclusion that there will be a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia. Under careful scrutiny, this argument suffers from several critical fallacies.（前面对题意的重述大概下就好，不用太多字，后面每段攻击的时候，再把各攻击点对应的原文内容复述好了）

Firstly，Salicylates may not have the same effect as aspirin in treating headaches although they are of the same chemical family. This conjecture can be easily supported by our commonsensible knowledge in daily life. Ethyl alcohol and methanol are members of same chemical family, however, ethyl alcohol is the main ingredient of esculent alcohol while only 10 milliliter methanol is lethal. (化学有点好啊^_^)

Secondly, the writer correlate the rise in the commercial use of salicylates with the decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in the twenty-year study but gives no causal linkage other than the similar time periods. The author does not inform us what fraction of foods consumed by citizens of Mentia contains salicylates, and what other kinds of additives had been add(added) in the food. From which we can’t exclude the possibility that those food added salicylates could constrain headache on their own, or, other kinds of additive response with salicylates, producting(producing) new ingredients which can curse(incur) the headache. Moreover, the author fails to consider factors other than food, such as environment, lifestyle, Medicare etc. It is manifest that over twenty years’ development, people’s lifestyle and the infrastructure of Medicare must have changed a lot. It is precipitate recognition of linkage between salicylates and the decline in the average number of headaches without considering such kind of variable.

Although I admit that the use of salicylates are concretely correlated to the decline in the average number of headaches , it is rush for the author deducing that with the new use for salicylates as flavor , a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia will occur. Salicylates have the function of using as flavor does not equate that enterprise will definitely chose it as flavor of their food products. The economic benefits of it haven’t been mentioned which is the critical factor of an enterprise to determine whether they will use it or not. Moreover, even there is a large scale of food using salicylates as flavor, the consumption of those kinds of food is unknown, in other words, the amount of salicylates people take it into is a mystery that whether the number of people suffer(suffered) headache will decline is also uncharted.

In summary, the writer reaches his or her conclusions based on poorly interpreted information. Without providing direct evidence that people from the area suffered fewer headaches is directly by the taking of salicylates and the newer function of the chemical will lead to soar of salicylates consumption, the author can’t give the final judgment that the continued steady decline tendency of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia.

语言很好，不多夸了，反正我差远了。
作者第一个攻击点，说同类化学物可能有不同效果，攻击得很好，这里我直接把句子理解错了，以为
a medicine used to treat headaches说水杨酸的。。。
本人一开始对第三个攻击点不是很认同，但是经过和组员讨论后，发现还是很有道理的，个人理解错了。
所以全文写得很好。。。跟人感觉时间写ARGUMENT时间不够用。。。

elevenkarUID: 2791267

Issue 48
"The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten."
Words:663  
--------- eleven  2010-5-3 11：35

1确实，很多没有group，famous few无法做出成就。林肯，袁隆平，great wall，拿破仑。
2 但是，是famous few他们做的管理，决策和控制。是他们激励了groups而导致的历史事件的发生。虽然groups同样重要，但由于历史研究资源的有限性导致我们要高效的进行历史学习把重点放在famous few身上是best choise。
3还有些famous few完全自己直接作出的贡献。当然就应该研究他们了

When it comes to great general in eastern country, MAOZE DONG may show up in your mind. When referring on philosopher, Bacon may come to you. When discussion about mathematician, such as Gauss, may present in your mind. It is true that our history emphasis on key individuals rather than concern about a group of people that even influences every citizenry’s philosophy. In my point of view, that way people think is the best-effect choice in terms of studying history under.

Admittedly, at times, the endeavor of masses buried in oblivion in every scale of our hitory such as political, scientific, art, even economy is undeniable. Without the exertion of Presidential campaign team of Lincoln, increasing the possibility of public exposure and helping him reply unfriendly doubt, it is incredible for him to address the onerous campaign events and bring to fruition. Even after he got the presidency, it is ridiculous that he conduct the supper country by himself. And such similar circumstances can also be found in scientific area. YUAN NONG PING, the famous father of hybrid rice in the world, got the academicians at the American Academy of Sciences last year, was not single-handedly responsible for the outcomes of his discoveries. Without the support of his research groups, YUAN would never have become the “famous few”. And more striking examples are towards the construction of architecture and war. Peoples rarely remember a mason work or a worm soldier, while the key individuals’ name -----such as First Emperor of Qin who incited the construction of great wall and Napoleon, is carved in our brains.

However, if we subject the examples given above into careful scrutiny, we will easily find that though such distinct groups of people make tremendous contribution to the happen of historical event, undue attention only to the efforts and strives of groups tends to obscure the casual relationships with which the study of history chiefly concerned. Since Mr. Lincoln is who the most respectful president in America’s history voted by citizenry; academician YUAN ‘s research doubled the production of the hybrid rice; First Emperor of Qin, even Napoleon, those illuminati provide the initial impetus of the pivot historical event. Those people play the essential role in deciding, management, and control by their inner convictions and intellect, which render the tendency of the historical events. In other words, anonymous people are absolutely important, while famous few are crucial. What’s more, we should also recognize that the recourse of study of history is limited that efficiently arranging the recourse is important. Although some forgettable groups do contribute a lot, since famous few are the representatives and elites of the “anonymous people”, through learning of famous few, we can reach our goal of studying history using for reference in conducting people act right today. That’s to say pay attention to the individuals are sagacious choice.

More impressively, when we recall the most profound events and trends in history, we discovered that Revolutionary advances occurred even when forgettable groups’ supporting for certain key individuals was minimal or even negligibl . Darwin's research on evolution, Michael Faraday's work on electromagnetism and electro-chemistry, Newton's discoveries of calculus and the laws of motion were all done without others’ grants. In 1905 Albert Einstein produced four path-breaking papers all by himself—on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity and the equivalence of matter and energy—while employed as an examiner at the Swiss patent office.

To sum up, comparing with the nameless, faceless massive groups, the key individuals play pivotal role in shaping the history. At times, some of the key individuals may not make the historical event possible without the help of their supporters, nevertheless, those are people who provided visions of the future that practiced by groups. Moreover, many incidences can be find in history that famous few accomplish their fruition all by themselves. Under limited recourse, researching those famous few deeply is the sensible approach to reach the best-effort of studying history.

cynthia313UID: 2765794

argue35 by toywang 修改 by Cynthia
The arguer draw(draws) a conclusion that salibylates have effect on the cure(curing) the headache by a correlation survey. However, there are many flaws in it. on one hand, the survey dose not exclusive data of salibylates which only correlated with it.(这句话没有动词) On the other hand, there is no logical sign to show if the salibylates are used as flavor additives, it can decline the number who suffered headache. The details of these flaws come after.

To begin with, the premise of the conclusion is that salicylates have the same function as aspirin which is widely used as analgetic. However, (删掉what） the attribute of salicylates is just of the same chemical family as aspirin which is not enough to show that they have the same function. For example, adamas and graphite are composed of the same chemical elements, but they have totally different nature.（这个例子好像不对，石墨和金刚石是统一元素的不同单体形式，而文章中两个东西是同系物，最好是举两个一个家族的化合物有不同的作用的，不过不知道ETS学过化学没有……） In addition, even salicylates can treat headache as well, it cannot guarantee without side effects as aspirin does. （这句话表达有问题，而且关副作用什么事呢？)With the function which is not affirmatory of salicylates, the conclusion drawn in the end must be unconvincing.

Granted that the salicylates have totally the same function as aspirin in treating headache, the survey is the main problem in different aspects. First, thesalicylates are used as preservations means that it can preserve food turn bad, this application has no connection with headache. Then, the arguer directly say thatsalicylates has been found to correlate with a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in our twenty-year study. （这段就可以直接攻击survey,而前面的对survey的描述显得比较啰嗦，而且作者是说salicylates和头痛减少的相关性是因为它长的像aspirin，和salicylates本身的作用没什么关系啊）The survey lacks of many essential elements which persuaded us believe the result.
For instance, the number of people, the chosen of people, and the condition of the survey are all not specific and assured. Without these indispensable data, the arguer cannot directly say the salicylates contribute to the decline of the number of people who suffered headache(headaches).

What comes last is another conclusion that the decline of people who suffered headache in Mentia will decline because salicylates can be used as flavor addition. In the first place, the total text was not mention the strict of Mentia, and even the survey is not fixed in the area of Mentia,(题目第一句就说明了survey是在M城做的……"The following appeared in the summary of a study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia".) how can we assure Mentia has the same characteristic as the place where the survey does. In the second place, even salicylates can be used as flavor addition, the contribution of it to the steady decline of the number is doubtable because the dosage of it in foodstuff is fixed and cannot raise as people’ like(as people's expectation). therefore, the discovery will not do good to the decline of the people who suffered headache.(剂量不能随便增加，为什么就不能治头痛呢？需要进一步阐述哦~)
To sum up, the arguer has omission(这是个名词，好像不能当动词用哦？但是是个好词) many essential data when he or she elaborate(好词，注意主谓一致elaborates) the survey to the public which may lead to the unconvincing (形容词后面缺被修饰的名词conclusion) in the end. Only with a believable survey, the conclusion based on it will has effect.（前面那句话都说with survey了，后面又说based on it,有点啰嗦，has应该改成have,建议：Only with a believable survey, can the conclusion have effect.)

感叹楼主语言方面进步很大哦~argue的感觉已经出来了~需要注意的是有些地方逻辑有点问题，或者没阐述清楚，比如第一个点里面说S有副作用，第二个攻击段里面说S本来是防腐剂，和头痛无关，第三个攻击段说S剂量不能随便增加……可能在写之前还要好好专研下题目哦^^其他的我不太清楚addition能不能替换additive，比较确定additive有食品添加剂的意思，如果楼主知道也可以告诉偶啊~一起加油~~

cynthia313UID: 2765794

issue48 by Cynthia
When reading history books, we can easily notice that the authors usually place too much emphasis on the key characters of historical events. However, who made our history? Are they the famous ones we admired or just the common people we neglected? In my point of view, individuals and groups together create the history. Just like on a field of battle, the famous individual is the general, while the common people are the soldiers. In order to win the battle, general's right commands and the soldiery's heroic fighting are both of great importance.

First of all, generally speaking, it is the great man that give the mass a right direction, or promote social development. They tend to give the society advanced ideas, which could bring about more rapid paces of scientific as well as social development. Such as Darwin, whose epoch-making book "The Origin of Species" puts forward the theory of biological evolution, consequently destroys the view that all species are immutable and created by God, and helps us to understand ourselves more objectively. Such discovery not only influences the field of biology, but also people's philosophies and so on so forth. Without such kind of great scientists , maybe our philosophy today are still backward and the science as well as society developed much slowly.

Simply put, we can not deny the individual's effect towards the social development, they are like the light in darkness, the beacon on the sea, which can give us confidence when we are down, point us the right direction when we are lost, encourage us to keep moving forward. Without them, the social development may be slower, and the situation of backwardness may last for a longer time.

Although the great characters contribute a lot to the social development, the power of common people should not be ignored as well. The great ones in history only provided advanced ideas, only when these standpoints are accepted by common people, can their great affect on social development be brought out. Suppose that Darwin's " the Origin of species" did not be supported by common people, it might be forgotten by history quickly, how can its significant contribute to the world come about?

In addition, in the era of dramatic social and technological development, the society become more and more democratic, thus a myriad of significant policy is not made by only a few famous people, but by all the citizens together. For instance, we have the right to elect so that we can determine who to be our president; we are able to attend the hearing so that we can anticipate in legislation and making policies. As a result, people's voice has had an unprecedented importance, and thus the history is made by every one of us.

In a word, both the famous ones and the groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten made the significant events and trends in history, neither of them is dispensable. We need great individuals to lead the way, and the common people to follow behind to fulfill the great ideas, these two are complementary to each other. Obviously, history is created by these two kind of people together.

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

字数少了，十分郁闷。

TOPIC: ISSUE48 - "The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten."
WORDS: 546         

When it comes to mathematics in Greek culture, Pythagoras may show up in your mind. When it comes to Roman Empire, Caesar may show up. And when it comes to renaissance, illuminati, such as Dante, may show up. It is true that our history put much emphasis on individuals, which, however, is both necessary and sufficient. Though history put much emphasis on illuminati, who contributed considerably during significant events, the history is made not only by these illuminati but also by myriads of anonymous people.

It is true that our knowledge of history is made up of lots of illuminati who led these magnificent events. For instance, we can hardly name few people in the realm of mathematics in Greek culture besides Pythagoras, who contributed to the establishment of Pythagorean that emphasize on mathematic researches. We regard these illuminati as symbols of these pivot events for their great contributions to the events. Consider this case. Pythagorean would have not been possibly established without Pythagoras’s thoughtful and enlightening opinions. Even the worse, academic researches achieved by Pythagoreans would not have shown up without the basic principles provided by Pythagoras. After all, it is these illuminati that led these people to such spectacular events. Hence, it is both indispensable and sufficient for us to lay emphasis on these illuminati.

However, these pivot events in history were not solely made possible by the famous since further speculation on these events will aware us of the achievement made by those anonymous people. Without sacrifices made by myriads of anonymous soldiers, no king, however wise he is, cannot enlarge it border across the whole European region. It is those soldiers and slaves that sacrificed their life to expand the border of the empire. Likewise, renaissance cannot be made possible without people to improve and carry out those great works made by those masters. Perspective cannot cast great influence on dozens of writers at that time if no one introduces this enlightening technique. Literature work, which contains surrealism, cannot burgeon if nobody is willing to reflect on these works and improve them. Thus, there is no denying that these groups of people whose name have long been forgotten also made great contribution to these great events.

According to events mentioned above, it is reasonable to reach the conclusion that both illuminati and anonymous people contribute a lot to those pivot events, in which case those events are made possible by both of them. On the one hand, without the guidance of maters such as Dante, renaissance might not able to attract so much attention in that time, since lots of masterpieces were achieve by these illuminati. As a result, those illuminati deserve those emphases. On the other hand, the influence of renaissance could not be so everlasting and broad without myriads of anonymous people introducing the spirit of the event to others. For that matter, groups of anonymous people as well as illuminati served to those significant events, in which case the anonymous merit attention while emphasis on illuminati are not too much.

Generally, it is fact that we may name lots of illuminati, for their great contribution at that time, when it comes to influential events in history, whereas people whose name have long been forgotten also contributed to those events. It is both the anonymous and the famous serve to those pivot events.