argument57

alickenUID: 2845947

1010G欢迎拍文 7.22作业

TOPIC: ARGUMENT57 - The following appeared in a newsletter on nutrition and health.

"Although the multimineral Zorba pill was designed as a simple dietary supplement, a study of first-time ulcer patients who took Zorba suggests that Zorba actually helps prevent ulcers. The study showed that only 25 percent of those ulcer patients who took Zorba under a doctor's direction developed new ulcers, compared to a 75 percent recurrence rate among ulcer patients who did not take Zorba. Clearly, then, Zorba will be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers and if health experts inform the general public of this fact, many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well."


In this newsletter, the writer draws the conclusion that Zorba is highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers and can prevent many first-time ulcers. To support his conclusion the writer cites a survey that Zorba has function in ulcers treatments. But this evidence cannot support the writer's conclusion well.


First of all, the definition of ‘prevent’ in the newsletter is not clear. Does the writer mean that Zorba can prevent ulcers while patient continuous eating it or once patient have it, they will not catch ulcer again though they stop eating it? If the writer means the latter, I doubt Zorba may no not have this kind of function, because writer cites the original function of Zorba - a simple dietary supplement, in the first sentence. That is to concede that this medicine is a nutrient medicine, may only contain some nutrition that help people to improve their health. As we know that the main difference of nutrient medicines from treating medicines is once stopping eating nutrient ones, illness may recurrent again in a short time. Since the writer does not cites any other information about Zorba, it may have no preventive function after stop medication.

Although the meaning of ‘prevent’ in the newsletter is the former one and the result of the study is true that Zorba really has some functions in preventing recurrence of ulcers, the writer cannot draw the conclusion that Zorba can prevent getting ulcer for the first time. In the study, doctors only asked patients who have gotten ulcers to use Zorba, that means these patients have already got ulcers before eating Zorba. Since having got ulcers, how the writer get the conclusion that Zorba can prevent first-time ulcers? So the latter part of the conclusion which the writer draws is ungrounded.

In sum, the newsletter at least suffers two main logical flaws. First, the writer does not distinguish differences between nutrition medicines and treatment medicines - the treatment ones can really treat illness but the nutrition ones cannot. Second, there is no direct relationship between the illustration of the study and the conclusion - can prevent first-time ulcer.