argument5

小付UID: 2773363

ARGUMENT 5

This editorial claims that Perkins Pharmaceuticals will be the most profitable pharmaceutical company in ten years. To support this claim the editorial cites the following facts: (1) the number of people with arthritis will rise over the next 20 years,(2) companies will be able to produce a cheaper version of Xenon when it expires, and (3) clinical studies show that Xylan is preferred over Xenon. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the claim.
(第一种开头)
In this newspaper, the editorial points out that companies that produce drugs for the arthritis should be profitable due to the increasing number of people suffering from this disease. The editorial also points out that Xenon expires in three years and then the other companies will produce a cheaper version of the drug and the editorial cites a survey that shows Xylan is superior to Xenon. On the basis of this line of reasoning the editorial concludes that Perkins Pharmaceuticals will be the most profitable company. This argument contains several logical faults, which render it unconvincing. （第二种开头）
To begin with, the editorial claims that companies producing the drugs for the arthritis patients will be profitable due to the rising number of such patients. However, the author does not provide any evidence that these patients will accept drug treatments or buy these kinds of drugs. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that most patients do not want to buy drugs or they will prefer other kind of treatments such as massaging or acupuncture. Besides, the editorial provides no information of the severity of these patients’ disease. It’s entirely possible that their severities are so slight that they don’t need to have a drug treatment.
Secondly, the result of clinical studies does not lend strong support to the assumption that Xylan is superior to Xenon. The patients participating in the studies are suffering from the most extreme cases of arthritis which cannot typify the overall patients with arthritis. Given this, it is entirely possible that Xylan is just more effective than Xenon for the extreme patients but not for the others. Besides, the editorial gives no information about the by-effects of these drugs so we cannot assess their effectiveness.
Finally, even if the companies will be profitable and Xylan is superior to Xenon, the author concludes too hastily that Perkins Pharmaceuticals will be the most profitable pharmaceutical company. (另外一种表达the editorial’s assertion that Perkins Pharmaceuticals will be the most profitable pharmaceutical company is sill unwarranted, in three respects. First, profitability is a function of both revenue and expense. Thus, it is entirely possible that the cost of Xylan is greater than Xenon even though more patients will prefer Xylan to Xenon. Second, the author overlooks other companies , who are possible to produce more effective and cheaper drugs than both Perkins and Becton. Thirdly, the author provides no evidence that Xylan have no by-effects on the patients. If it is not the case, the Xylan will hardly be accepted by the patients let alone being the most profitable. However, the author begs such possibilities.
In sum, the author’s argument is unpersuasive. To strengthen it the author must provide more convincing evidence that patients of arthritis will accept a drug treatment and they will prefer Xylan to other drugs. To better assess the argument we would need more information about the severity of these patients’ arthritis and their purchase intentions. We also need to know more information about all the pharmaceutical companies other than Becton and Perkin such as the costs of the drugs produced by them.
其中还有一个逻辑错误是，其他的公司不一定会制造出cheaper version of Xenon ，为什么？谁能帮忙分析一下？谢谢！