topic76求指导

lvicky-gUID: 2870314

自己有改过几次 但还是觉得有点混乱 希望各位G友给点意见 多多批评~~~~








TOPIC: ARGUMENT76 - The following appearedas part of an article in a health and beauty magazine.

"A group of volunteers participated ina study of consumer responses to the new Luxess face cream. Every morning for amonth, they washed their faces with mild soap and then applied Luxess. At theend of that month, most volunteers reported a marked improvement in the waytheir skin looked and felt. Thus it appears that Luxess is truly effective inimproving the condition of facial skin."



In this article, by citing a study ofconsumer responses to the new Luxess face cream which shows that mostrespondents reported a marked improvement in their facial skin after using itfor a month, the author draws the conclusion that Luxess is effective in improvingthe condition of facial skin. However, close scrutiny of each fact presented, Ifound this article is problematic and logically flawed in several criticalaspects.




First of all, the study of new Luxess facecream is too imprecise and implicit to substantiate the author's assumption. Noclear evidence is offered to prove that the volunteers in the study aresufficient in size and representative of the overall consumers. There isentirely the possibility that the number of the volunteers only amount to scantnumber of people, or the volunteers participated have better skin conditions thanthe majority of consumers, that any kind of skin products are effective to them.Either of these scenarios, if true, can serve to undermine the author's postulationthat such study indicates the Luxess is effective in improving the condition ofmost of their consumers' facial skin.




In the second place, the author seems toohastily to infer that the claimed perception of an improvement in the way skinslooked and felt does represent a better condition of their facial skin since noclear definition is given to justify such “improvement”. Besides, it is quitepossible that those volunteers happened to be in a good mood when responding tothe study and are more willing to give a positive answer to the study while noimprovement really happens. As the study is questionable in reliability, anysupposition drawn from it is dubious at best.





Even assuming that the study isrepresentative and reliable, a correlation between the new Luxess face cream andan improvement condition of facial skin does not necessarily infer a causalrelationship. A myriad of other probable reasons are neglected by the author,such as the use of mild soaps, a healthier diet, a better sleep, regular hoursetc. Without considering and ruling out these and other reasons that mayinfluence the respondents' facial condition, the author cannot convince me thatLuxess is the main result of such improvement.




What's more, the Achilles’ hill of thisarticle lies in that the author obviously ignores some possible side effects ofthe Luxess face cream. Logical and common senses inform me the mere fact that amonth’s use of the new Luxess face cream improves the user’s facial conditionaccomplishes nothing toward strengthening the author’s conclusion. Since nofurther reports are given, the argument leaves open the possibility that alonger period of using such products may do harm to consumers’ facialcondition. Additionally, the author fails to take those who did not report an improvementin their facial condition into account. Perhaps they got a worse conditionafter using Luxess’s products. Furthermore, even the foregoing assumptions aresubstantiate, the author’s sweeping claim that all the Luxess’s products canhave a similar effects is still unwarranted. In short, without supportingevidence the author’s claim that the Luxess will improve the consumers’ facialcondition is unpersuasive.




In sum, the author cannot justify hisconclusion on the basis of the mere fact given in this article. Rather thanrelying on doubtful studies, the author should provide direct evidence tosubstantiate the causal relationship between the uses of the Luxess face creamand the improvement in facial condition. To better evaluate this deduction, Iwould also need follow-up researches of a longer period use of the products andtestimonies of eliminating any possible negative effects.