Argument 35----欢迎拍文小组

neverjustUID: 2848024

TOPIC: ARGUMENT35 - The 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."

WORDS: 413
TIME: 00:40:00
DATE: 2010-7-19 20:17:08

The argument presented above suffers from several flaws. In the first place, the author fails to prove that the salicylate (S) has the same function as aspirin (A). Secondly, no evidence could testify that there is a casual relationship between S and the steady decline of the average number of headache. At last, the report is open to doubt. Let me discuss the argument below.

To begin with, the author concludes that S displayed a same function on treat headache for the simple reason that it is a member of the same chemical family as A. But this conclusion is unwarranted. Though S and A are members of one chemical family, it does not mean they have the same effect on treating headache. For instance, CO and CO2 (carbon dioxide) both include oxygen and carbonium, but their characters are totally different. We cannot say things who are in same chemical family must have same action. What’s more, even if S could treat headache, we could not hold the point that it can protect people from headache, right？

Though S has the effect ion on treating and protecting on headache, we could not sure if it is an important role on declining the average number of headaches patients. It may help, however there might be some other reason that made the decline happen. The resident did not show any information about the quantity that S was added into foods. If the amount is really small, maybe the S added in would not display the treating or protecting effect. And the author ignores the alternative explanations, such as the lifestyle, the climate, the life environment, etc. What's more, different people got headache by different reasons, whether a single medicine could heal all the kinds of headache is open to doubt. So the author should not rashly summarize that the S which was added in those foods are the only reason to decline the quantity of headache sufferers.

In addition, the author has not provided complete information of the twenty-year study. How many people has participants the study? Have they already had a headache before attended the study? We even don't know the quantity of the attendees who eaten the foods included S.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive, to strengthen it, the author should analyze the composition of S. And figure out the actual reason that made a decline. And provide more complete information about the reported study to readers for evaluating the conclusion.




.

fchenyanUID: 2804020

TOPIC: ARGUMENT35 - The 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."

WORDS: 413
TIME: 00:40:00
DATE: 2010-7-19 20:17:08

The argument presented above suffers from several flaws. In the first place, the author fails to prove that the salicylate (S) has the same function as aspirin (A). Secondly, no evidence could testify that there is a casual relationship between S and the steady decline of the average number of headache. At last, the report is open to doubt. Let me discuss the argument below.(结构新颖哈)

To begin with, the author concludes that S displayed a same function on treat（treating） headache for the simple reason that it is a member of the same chemical family as A. But this conclusion is unwarranted. Though S and A are members of one chemical family, it does not mean they have the same effect on treating headache. For instance, CO and CO2 (carbon dioxide) both include oxygen and carbonium, but their characters are totally different. We cannot say things who are in same chemical family must have same action. What’s more, even if S could treat headache, we could not hold the point that it can protect people from headache, right？(例子很好，不过我这么说算不算是夸自己呢？类比性质的例子在argument中可以使用，毕竟很少有例子可以用，个人拙见)

Though S has the effection on treating and protecting（treating and protectiong 这两次词放在一起一定让你在写这个句子的时候很为难，因为意思很复杂而且你的句子是错的，建议哈，建议，Though S has effection on treating headaches and protecting  human health） on headache, we could not sure if it is(is就不对了，应该是play) an important role on declining the average number of headaches patients. It may help, however there might be some other reason that made the decline happen. The resident did not show any information about the quantity that(after) S was added into foods. If the amount is really small, maybe the S added in would not display (take)the treating or protecting effect. And the author ignores the alternative explanations, such as the lifestyle, the climate, the life environment, etc. What's more, different people got headache by(for or because of ) different reasons, whether a single medicine could heal all the kinds of headache is open to doubt. So the author should not rashly summarize that the S which was added in those foods are the only reason to decline the quantity of headache sufferers.

In addition, the author has not provided complete information of the twenty-year study. How many people has participants the study? Have they already had a headache before attended the study? We even don't know the quantity of the attendees who eaten the foods included S.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive, to strengthen it, the author should analyze the composition of S. And figure out the actual reason that made a decline. And provide more complete information about the reported study to readers for evaluating the conclusion.
已有的分析有的地方比较深入，有的地方显得过于单薄，希望加油，这样下去的话比较容易在考场上出现写完正文两段之后思路中断。仔细分析题目还是有很多逻辑错误的，不妨去看看有位同学给我的这篇argu的修改意见，加油。

neverjustUID: 2848024

2# fchenyan
谢谢组长~！！:p