欢迎拍小组 argument 56

crazyjooUID: 2805124

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: 460
TIME: 00:40:12
DATE: 2000-7-22 21:25:59


The argument is well presented, but not thoroughly reasoned. By citing a study of ulcer patients, which showed that only a quarter of those ulcer patients developed new ulcers after they took Zorba, the arguer's claim that Zorba is an effective medicine in preventing recurrent ulcers and it can also serve to prevent first-time ulcers as well seems logical.

In the first place, the argument observes a correlation between the use of Zorba and the decrease number of patients who develop new recurrent ulcers. However, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between them. Perhaps the control group and the experiment group have difference in all the kinds. For example, patients in the control group may suffer much more server ulcers than patients in the experiment group. Thus, the control group is more likely to get a high percent recurrence rate and hence whether Zorba help medicate ulcer remains unknown. It is equal possible that the healthy situation of these two groups was similar, however, they were treated by different doctors. In this respect, anthropogenic factors may effect the end result of the study greatly. It is tempting to think that the experiment group was treated by an experienced doctor who had spent many years on ulcer study while the control group was treated by a general doctor. Without making sure that the only difference between control group and experiment group is the use of Zorba, the result of the study cited in the argument opens to doubt and it is unjustified to conclude that Zorba can cure ulcers.

In the second place, the arguer falsely suggests that Zorba will also thwart first-time ulcers. Even we accepted the arguer's previous conclusion we discuss above that Zorba can effectively prevent recurrent ulcers, it is also presumptuous and unnecessary to extend the assertion to embrace first-time ulcers. It is highly possible that Zorba can prevent recurrent ulcers because it can cooperate with the immune cell of the patients who had already got ulcers. Maybe it is the chemcial reaction between Zorba and some factors which are generated immediate upon the the patient's recover from the first-time ulcers that prevent ulcers from resurging. Or perhaps the pharmalogical machinations of first-time ulcer and recurrent ulcers are different, at least when it comes to the use of  Zorba. In this light, the arguer's recommendation is irresponsible since he/she arrives to this point without any scientific scrutiny or empirical experiments. As a result, people who agree with the arguer , may risk over investing economically and psychologically in Zorba which essentialy has not any value in the treatment of first-time ulcers at all.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more logically acceptable, the arguer has to make sure that the result of the study is representative and scientific. Moreover, a extra study about the Zorba's effect to first-time ulcer is needed to make the arguer's relevant assertion more convincing.