argument35 7.20 欢迎拍文

heartleadingUID: 2850897

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."
In the argument, the arguer attempts to convince us that the number of residents suffered headaches in Mentia will decline continually. At first glance appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits solid evidence addressed to substantiate the argument.

First, the arguer unwarrantedly assumes that salicylates can treat headaches because salicylats are members of the same chemical family as aspirin which are efficient to headaches. That’s to say that there is no evidence to support that the medicines with the same chemical family also have the same function
in treating. It is entirely likely that the salicylates differ from aspirin in function, even result the headaches instead of treatment. Lacking of the details of salicylates, we have every reason to doubt the trust worth of this conclusion.

Conceding that the salicylates can treat headaches, there is no causal relationship between the commercial uses of salicylates and the decline on the average number of headaches. Perhaps the reasons results the decline are the higher level live quality, the development in chemical areas, the lower press from work and better environment. Not ruling out the possibilities, the arguer cannot draw any conclusion about the survey.

Even the commercial uses of salicylates are the reasons for decline of headaches; the arguer falsely assumes that all surveyed persons have salicylates only from the food preservatives. Yet, it is possible that ones who have a decline in headaches have much natural food with salicylates instead of little preservatives within salicylates.

Besides, the arguer unconvincingly asserts that the use in food flavor additives can decrease the number of headaches.
But there are a myriad of reasons to result the headaches, such as the old age, the high degree radio even the salicylates themselves, after all there is no information to guarantee the too much salicylates would not introduce the headaches. Therefore, without more details about the salicylates' function, it is unacceptable to conclude the decline.

To sum up, the arguer fails to validate his claim that the number of residents suffered headaches in Mentia will decline continually because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains to. To bolster it, the arguer would have to provide clearer details to demonstrate the function of salicylates. In addition, in order to access the argument, we need more concrete information concerning the survey and the surveyors’ lives. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.