Argument57 7.22 欢迎拍文

heartleadingUID: 2850897

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."
WORDS: 415

TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-7-22 16:30:51

The argument contains several facts that are questionable. First, the reliability and generalizability of the study are open to question. In addition, the argument fails to consider the difference between two groups of patients in study. Besides, the argument assumes preventing first-time ulcers amounts to doing recurrent ulcers.

In evaluating the evidence of the study, one must consider how the study was conducted. If the questions were leading or the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answer. One must also consider how board the study was. If the study was limited to a few patients of a certain doctor, the results might be attributable to those particular individuals and that particular dentist. Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to general public. In addition, even if the study was broader, one must consider whether the patients who taking Zorba without recurrence will develop new ulcers after some time. That's to say, the time to judge recurrence may be not long enough. Factors such as these could explain the study results and could undermine the generalization of the study results.

Secondly, the argument's author fails to rule out the possibility that the two groups of patients are different in physical conditions and attention to health. For example, people who taking Zorba might be those who in perfect health so that they obviously better fight diseases, ulcers included. It might also be the case that the Zorba users tend to be the kind of people who are excessively concerned with the conditions of their oral health, thus they regularly have a series of oral examination and relevant treatment to prevent the recurrence.

Even if one accepts the study results, the argument remains questionable. The argument assumes that the function in preventing first-time ulcers is similar to it against recurrence. But the argument fails to provide evidence to substantiate the assumption. What's more, the argument fails to consider the possibility that Zorba's efficiency is the result of interaction between Zorba and the secretion of ulcers. That's to say, Zorba might lose its effectiveness to ones who never have ulcers.

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the preventing function in first-time is as well as in recurrence. It could be further improved by ruling out the difference in two groups of patients and by details information of study.

neverjustUID: 2848024

稍晚或者明天贴上修改意见可以么，sorry

neverjustUID: 2848024

1# heartleading

The argument contains several facts that are questionable. First, the reliability and generalizability of the study are open to question. In addition, the argument fails to consider the difference between two groups of patients in study. Besides, the argument assumes preventing first-time ulcers amounts to doing recurrent ulcers.（开头干净利索）

In evaluating the evidence of the study, one must consider how the study was conducted. If the questions were leading or the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answer. One must also consider how board the study was. If the study was limited to a few patients of a certain doctor, the results might be attributable to those particular individuals and that particular dentist. Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to general public. In addition, even if the study was broader, one must consider whether the patients who taking Zorba without recurrence will develop new ulcers after some time. That's to say, the time to judge recurrence may be not long enough. Factors such as these could explain the study results and could undermine the generalization of the study results.（这段说了两个问题，1受访对象不具代表性 2 观察期不够长——信息不足。但个人认为，2作为一个合理他因来证明：不复发不一定是Z的作用似乎比较好一点。只是来证明“信息不足”或者“急于概括”这个论点的话的话，可以说的点太多了。完全可以单开一段，集中论证。个人看法哈）

Secondly, the argument's author fails to rule out the possibility that the two groups of patients are different in physical conditions and attention to health. For example, people who taking Zorba might be those who in perfect health so that they obviously better fight diseases, ulcers included. It might also be the case that the Zorba users tend to be the kind of people who are excessively concerned with the conditions of their oral health, thus they regularly have a series of oral examination and relevant treatment to prevent the recurrence.（个人认为还可以举一些其他例子，关于两组差异的，你的两个例子其实可以合并——都是对个人健康的重视程度不同。再举一个，比如医生的疗法不同，溃疡的部位不同，严重程度不同，发病原因不同啦等等）

Even if one accepts the study results, the argument remains questionable. The argument assumes that the function in preventing first-time ulcers is similar to it against recurrence. But the argument fails to provide evidence to substantiate the assumption. （展开论证is needed）What's more, the argument fails to consider the possibility that Zorba's efficiency is the result of interaction between Zorba and the secretion of ulcers. That's to say, Zorba might lose its effectiveness to ones who never have ulcers. （这点个人认为说这两句就可以了~）

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the preventing function in first-time is as well as in recurrence. It could be further improved by ruling out the difference in two groups of patients and by details information of study.（结尾简单明快，并照应开头）

以上个人看法，仅供参考，欢迎qq探讨~祝你成功！