argument167~~~欢迎版友们的狂拍很批！！！

i-twigUID: 2856642

167. Lavender-scent pillows can cure insomnia.

The notion that the scent of lavender flowers serves as an effective treatment for insomnia appears to be obvious and convincing, at least at first glance. In order to substantiate it, after all, the arguer shows us a somewhat clear and thorough three-week-long experiment observing and comparing subjects’ different symptoms and reactions to lavender-scent pillows and other sleeping medicines used for different periods of time, which finally demonstrates that participants using lavender-scent pillows for three weeks slept longer and more soundly, and signifies the scent’s efficaciousness. However, further reflection reveals several dubious assumptions and problematical experimental methods the conclusion resting on. The conclusion, therefore, is poorly convincing from my point of view.

First of all, no matter what volunteers reacted to the pillows or other sleeping medicines in the weeks after, the method of this study, in itself, prompts scepticism. For an experiment, especially on medicines and medical treatments, only with a number of subjects with different physical conditions can it acts as meaningful reference. It is unreasonable, therefore, to draw any conclusion from the experiment only involving 30 participants. Depending on the total number of patients suffering from insomnia in the current society, it is entirely possible that lavender scent has no efficacy to some kind of people, or even harmful to them. For example, I know from experience that plants, of course including lavender, may set off allergies in some cases. Hence, the scarce of subjects also leads to the ignorance of possible risks, even if the arguer confidently proves lavender-scent pillows’ miracle function and advantage in the experiment. Unless the experiments sample sufficient subjects and did so randomly, and justify lavender scent has no side-effect, can the experiment be reliable then.

What’s more, the study fails to consider the possible effect of controlled rooms and monitoring equipment on volunteers’ sleeping quality. In a totally strange environment, even ordinary people without insomnia may not sleep very well, let alone volunteers with chronic insomnia. As a result, without rolling out the possibilities that sleeping environment has something to do with sleeping quality, the following experiment and results can not be warranted. Specifically, the experimental result in the first week (subjects slept soundly but wakened feeling tired) is probably attributable to the fact that they hadn’t adopt to the new environment yet and felt a little nervous; and better sleeping quality in the third week may just result from familiarity.

Secondly, the arguer provides inadequate information of the third week’s experiment, making the contrast of sleeping quality among three weeks, which the conclusion relies on, hard to be believed. Different from previous weeks, the arguer does not tell whether wakened subjects felt tired. Based on previous weeks’ results, it is entirely possible that volunteers slept soundly but wakened feeling tired. In addition, he fails to provide statistics regarding to the absolute number of sleeping hours and depth of sleep, but only presents some relative contrast like “longer, more” ambiguously. Lacking this information, it is equally possible that subjects’ sleeping hours are still 2 hours less than common sleeping hours, say, 7 hours, even though the time they slept in third week was 1 hour more than previous weeks. Besides, chances are that the two more hours’ sleep was merely because subjects were too tired after continuously two weeks’ low sleeping quality. In short, only through the provided information, it is dubious to conclude that lavender can necessarily cure insomnia.

In sum, the experiment poorly substantiates that lavender scent can cure insomnia. To strengthen it, the study would have to sample more patients with insomnia randomly and to present more absolute statistics when comparing. Meanwhile, he would also have to roll out the possible effect of environment. Only with the given factors can this argument be more thorough and logically acceptable.

madpianoUID: 2257605

你好，我作文不好只能提点小建议了。首先what's more是不是一个合适的段首的词不不太清楚，而且跟后面的secondly有些冲突。其次，第二段的论点可能不是很有说服力吧，参考一下提纲。最后，结尾可以再饱满点，批得再狠点！嘿嘿！

我也写了一篇希望lz能给批评或意见。几经题目还是要练啊，哎。。

In this argument the arguer comes to the conclusion that the scent in lavender flowers is proved effective in curing insomnia. To justify this conclusion, the author cites a recent study that 30 volunteers suffering from chronic insomnia were chosen to sleep on a lavender-scented pillows in consecutive nights in three weeks. The author points out that after volunteers stopped using their usual medication, they slept more soundly and longer. However, close scrunity of this argument reveals that it is unconvincing in several aspects.

To begin with, the author shows no information about how the volunteers were chosen. Is the sample significant for this experiment? According to the author, these 30 volunteers have been suffering from chronic insomnia, which substantially undermines the conclusion that lavender scent cures all kinds of insomnia. In order to prove that lavender scent is indeed effective for all kinds of insomnia, more volunteers with different kinds of insomnia must be studied before any conclusion can be drawn.

In addition, results from the first week of this study shows no evidence that lavender-scented pillows actually improve sleeping, but rather exacerbate chronic sleeping disorder by making volunteers sleep less soundly and waken tired. The true relation between lavender scent and insomnia needs to be strengthened by more concrete data.

Furthermore, during the second week, it is reported that without usual medication, insomnia was aggravating on volunteers, leading much worse sleeping quality that the first week. It is entirely possible that lavender scent did not help improve sleeping quality at all, while usual medication is the only factor which does improve sleeping. If the author cannot disprove that medication no longer has efficacy on these volunteer, we are not able to say that lavender scent is the only positive factor that improves sleeping quality.

Finally, the author fails to show any positively correlation between lavender scent and sleeping quality improvement. From the study, the volunteers experienced longer sleeping period and better sleeping quality during the third week. The author tends to ascribe lavender scent was effective, however, other possibilities are totally ignored. It is very likely that they slept more soundly just because they slept longer. Common sense tells us that sleeping time directly influences sleeping quality in that appropriately longer sleeping time leads to better sleeping quality. Another possibility is that usual medication may have lasting efficacy. Without ruling out these possibilities, the conclusion simply cannot convince me.

In sum, the conclusion reached in the argument is invalid and misleading. To make it logically acceptable, the author ought to demonstrate that the sample is statistically significant and suitable for this study; lavender-scented pillows indeed cure insomnia. A sound medical study on a certain medicine should include a control group. In this case a group of people having similar insomnia syndromes must be experimented on the same conditions as the experiment group, except that control group does not use lavender scent pillows at all. Otherwise, I would have to suspend my judgment about the credibility of this argument until the arguer can provide me sufficient information on whether or not lavender scent improves sleeping quality. If I was a potential customer suffering insomnia, I would highly doubt such folk remedy, and continuing my medication until more convincing study is conducted.