烂文求拍！Argument168

duoxunkingUID: 2754021

168 Typically, as people age, their bone mass decreases, making them more vulnerable to bone fractures. A recent study concludes that the most effective way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life is to take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily. The three-year study followed a group of French women in their eighties who were nursing-home residents. The women were given daily supplements of twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium. In addition, the women participated in a light weightlifting program. After three years, these women showed a much lower rate of hip fractures than is average for their age.

The argument draws a conclusion that old people who take twice the recommended dose vitamin D and the calcium daily are more vulnerable to bone fracture. To bolster this conclusion, the author cites a study followed a group of French women in their eighties which indicate the prescription is functional to reduce the rate of bone fracture. But none of these evidence can convince me to accept the conclusion drawn by the author due to some logical faults in several respects.
Firstly, the author unfairly assumes that the three-year study followed a group of French old women in their eighties who were nursing-home residents is statistically reliable. To supply this assumption, the author must provide some clear evidence that the number of French old women is a sufficient large sample and this sample is representative of all such people. Without such evidence, both the conclusion of the study and the conclusion in the argument remain unconvincing to me.
Secondly, even assuming that the sample of the study is sufficiently large, the author fails to provide persuasive evidence that lower bone fracture rate results from the prescription, taking twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily. Lacking such evidence it can be entirely possible that perhaps these old women do more excises every morning and have good dietary habits to avoid the bone fracture. Since the author fails to account for these alternative explanations, I cannot accept the conclusion in this argument.
Thirdly, even if the decrease of bone fracture is attributable to taking twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium, the study only focus on a special group of people, old French women in their eighties who were nursing-home residents. The author ignores that perhaps the recommendation has different effect on other groups of old people because the conclusion of the study results from special life habits and location. For that matter, the same recommendation could have opposite effect on Chinese old man; even the recommended dose is fatal to them.
Finally, even though the prescription provided by the author is effective to old people all over the world, the author still too hasty to draw the conclusion. The study finally shows a much lower rate of hip fracture which could not be representative to all bones. For this sake, I cannot be persuaded until the author provides other credible evidence to support the recommendation.
In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the conclusion the author must provide other clear evidence such as a convincing study followed a group of old people which is representative let alone reasonable evidence that the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium is functional to reduce the rate of the bone fracture.