argument35 欢迎拍文修改小组作业贴

raysun77UID: 2688235

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."

Grounding on the new use for salicylates, the arguer excepted a continue d steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia. To support the claim, the arguer provided some evidence such as the rice which added salicylates has been found to correlated with a steady decline in the past years, and the new research for the salicylates. The article seems to be convincing, however, there stil are several flaws that might undermine the conclusion of arguer.

In this article, the arguer claimed that Salicylates can treat headaches just because S are members of the same chemical family as aspirin. Clearly, the arguer fails to make the relationship between the effects and the chemical instruction. As we all know, there are amount of members in one chemical family which are total different with each other. For instance, CO2 and CO are much similar with each other.
However, if we instead of CO2 in the air with CO, there will never be humans or other animals in the world. Even if S is provided similar not only in the chemical instruction but in the effect of headaches, what is important is the factors that might cause headache are various. It is entirely possible that aspirin, and its family S, are just effect for several kinds of headache, not all kinds of it. Before providing more information about the effect of S in the treatment of headaches, the arguer cannot correlate s with the steady decline in the average number of headaches.

In the arguer’s opinion, for the reason that the rice which added salicylates has been found to correlated with a steady decline in the past years, there will be a continued steady decline in the number of headaches for the more S in the food. First of all, the arguer ignored other factors that might cause the steady decline in the past years. There might be other chemical also caused the same results. Otherwise, the arguer didn’t mention whether the headache persons stopped their treatment when they ate the rice. It is perhaps that the real effect part in the treatment of headache is not S in the rice. Such as a good emotion, a passive atmosphere and a group of good friends, all of those can help patients through the headache. Before proofing more evidence to show the relationship between the S and the decline in the number of headache, the arguer cannot assume that there will be a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia.

In addition, the arguer didn’t mention that whether will be a bad effective if too much S eaten by the people. As we all know, there always will be a limited level for chemical in the food. And the even worse, one people who doesn’t have the headache eats the rice will be suffered by the other illness caused by the unnecessary S.


In sum, before providing more evidences about the effect of S, the current relationship between S and the number of headache , and more information for the bad effects that S might cause, the arguer cannot conclude such unconvincing, questionable conclusion.

alickenUID: 2845947

Grounding on the new use for salicylates, the arguer excepted(排除?) a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia. To support the claim, the arguer provided some evidence(evidences) such as the rice which added salicylates has been found to correlated with a steady decline in the past years, and the new research for the salicylates. The article seems to be convincing, however, there stil are(are still) several flaws that might undermine the conclusion of arguer.

In this article, the arguer claimed that Salicylates can treat headaches just because S are members of the same chemical family as aspirin. Clearly, the arguer fails to make the relationship between the effects and the chemical instruction. As we all know, there are amount of members in one chemical family which are total different with each other. For instance, CO2 and CO are much similar with each other. However, if we instead of CO2 in the air with CO(However, if it is much CO instead of CO2 in the air), there will never be humans or other animals in the world.(后面应从CO2转回到S和aspirin上来再阐述一下，直接接even if 感觉很生硬) Even if S is provided similar not only in the chemical instruction but in the effect of headaches, what is important is the factors that might cause headache are various. It is entirely possible that aspirin, and its family S, are just effect for several kinds of headache, not all kinds of it (这个点我觉得不是很好). Before providing more information about the effect of S in the treatment of headaches, the arguer cannot correlate s with the steady decline in the average number of headaches.

In the arguer’s opinion, for the reason that the rice which added salicylates has been found to correlated(correlate) with a steady decline in the past years, there will be a continued steady decline in the number of headaches for the more S in the food. First of all, the arguer ignored other factors that might cause the steady decline in the past years. There might be other chemical also caused the same results. Otherwise, the arguer didn’t mention whether the headache persons stopped their treatment when they ate the rice. It is perhaps that the real effect part in the treatment of headache is not S in the rice. Such as a good emotion, a passive atmosphere and a group of good friends, all of those can help patients through the headache. Before proofing more evidence to show the relationship between the S and the decline in the number of headache, the arguer cannot assume that there will be a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia.

In addition, the arguer didn’t mention that whether will be a bad effective（harmful side-effect）if too much S eaten by the people. As we all know, there always will be a limited level for chemical in the food. And the even worse, one people who doesn’t have the(去掉) headache eats the rice will be suffered by the other illness caused by the unnecessary S.

In sum, before providing more evidences about the effect of S, the current relationship between S and the number of headache , and more information for the bad effects that S might cause, the arguer cannot conclude such unconvincing, questionable conclusion.

我写这篇的时候也在想用化学常识来攻击same chemical family，但是我举的是元素的例子，而且还不知道这样攻击好不好，但是看到raysun77同学也这样攻击，应该可以这样写吧
关于文中那个20年的调查还是应该攻击的，比如攻击调查方法不科学。还有一点：虽然S可以加到食物中，但是口感不好，人们不愿吃。


共同进步