欢迎拍文修改小组7.22作业 argument

迷失的鱼UID: 2850922

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: 487
TIME: 00:32:00
DATE: 2010/7/22 19:45:56

In the letter, the author claimed that Zorba(Z) will be efficient in preventing recurrent ulcers and many first-time ulcers. A survey is cited to support his claim and a study showed that there was more patients who did not take Z suffering recurrence than those who take Z developing a ulcers latter. Supportive as first glance, a closer look at these evidences shows that the claims suffer several logical fallacies.

First of all, the study to show Z helps prevent ulcers is open to suspect. To evaluate his study, one must take into consideration how the survey is conducted. If the question were leading, the result may be unreliable- people just respond with the expected one. In addition, how many people are taken into the study should be considered. If the number is a small one, for example, less than 100, the respond answers are inefficient to be a representative of all the first-time ulcer patients. Moreover, even if the survey has enough responds, one must consider whether it is a biased convey. For example, if this survey is made in a special region or a single city, or there is a narrow age limitation over the survey, the studies based on the patients are for sure undermined.

Secondly, the author commits a fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" that Z cannot offer a sufficient explain of relative lower percentage of recurrence for sole chronological consequence is far from enough to make a casual relationship. Lacking more information to exhibit this relationship, we can suppose that there are other explanations respond to the result. For instance, as the author claims, those patients who would like to follow the doctor’s advise are by nature the one who care more about their health, and it is possible that because of following doctor’s advise, such as take medicines rather than Z on time or have a regular diet or just take more sports , those patients have relative lower percentage of recurrence. Not ruling out the likelihood above, any conclusion based on the comparison is unconvincing.

Thirdly, even admitting that Z is efficient on preventing recurrence of ulcer, the author unfairly assumes that it is also efficient on preventing first-time ulcers. Without any information to show that function, we cannot confirm his assumption. As people who have and have not the experience of ulcers may react differently on taking Z-due to antibody formed during treatment, we cannot expect the same result on different people. In that case, the prediction based on different objects is not pursuable.

In sum, the author falsely concludes that Z is efficient on preventing first-time ulcer and recurrence. To better strengthen his claim, the author should provide more information about the study and more detail about the differences between who take and do not take Z. To further evaluate his argument, the author should text whether Z is also efficient on preventing first-time ulcer.

fchenyanUID: 2804020

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: 487
TIME: 00:32:00
DATE: 2010/7/22 19:45:56

In the letter, the author claimed that Zorba(Z) will be efficient in preventing recurrent （of）ulcers and many first-time ulcers（第一句话很不通顺). A survey is cited to support his claim and a study showed that there was（were） more patients who did not take Z suffering recurrence than those who take Z developing a ulcers latter. Supportive as first glance, a closer look at these evidences shows that the claims suffer several logical fallacies.

First of all, the study to show Z helps prevent ulcers is open to suspect. To evaluate his (this study or whose study, but not his study)study, one must take into consideration (about)how the survey is conducted. If the question were leading, the result may be unreliable- people just respond with the expected one. In addition, how many people are taken into the study should be considered. If the number is a small one, for example, less than 100, the respond answers are inefficient to be a representative of all the first-time ulcer patients. Moreover, even if the survey has enough responds, one must consider whether it is a biased convey. For example, if this survey is made in a special region or a single city, or there is a narrow age limitation over the survey, the studies based on the patients are for sure undermined.

Secondly, the author commits a fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (这个很好，记下了)that Z cannot offer a sufficient explain of relative lower percentage of recurrence for sole chronological consequence is far from enough to make a casual relationship. Lacking more information to exhibit this relationship, we can suppose that there are other explanations respond to the result. For instance, as the author claims, those patients who would like to follow the doctor’s advise are by nature the one who care more about their health, and it is possible that because of following doctor’s advise, such as take medicines rather than Z on time or have a regular diet or just take more sports , those patients have relative lower percentage of recurrence. Not ruling out the likelihood above, any conclusion based on the comparison is unconvincing.

Thirdly, even admitting that Z is efficient on preventing recurrence of ulcer（注意看一下题目这个study的对象就是first-time ulcers）, the author unfairly assumes that it is also efficient on preventing first-time ulcers. Without any information to show that function, we cannot confirm his assumption. As people who have and have not the experience of ulcers may react differently on taking Z-due to antibody formed during treatment, we cannot expect the same result on different people. In that case, the prediction based on different objects is not pursuable.

In sum, the author falsely concludes that Z is efficient on preventing first-time ulcer and recurrence. To better strengthen his claim, the author should provide more information about the study and more detail about the differences between who take and do not take Z. To further evaluate his argument, the author should text whether Z is also efficient on preventing first-time ulcer.审题是很重要的一步，建议你在平常练习写作的时候也准备纸笔，记下你要分析的地方或者是关键字，这方面你可以向那些上过辅导班的同学借鉴一下，我觉得应该是有方法的。

迷失的鱼UID: 2850922

限时写脑子巨混乱。。
就玩命敲键盘。。 2# fchenyan