ARGU35求指点

huangjingshuUID: 2815487

题目：ARGUMENT35 - The following appeared in the summary of a study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia.
"Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates, for the past several decades food-processing companies have also been adding salicylates to foods as preservatives. This rise in the commercial use of salicylates has been found to correlate with a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in our twenty-year study. Recently, food-processing companies have found that salicylates can also be used as flavor additives for foods. With this new use for salicylates, we can expect a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia."





The argument is well-presented, but not well-reasoned. The author first mentioned the fact that salicylates (S) is in the same chemical family with aspirin (A), and indicate that its function of treating headaches. Then, by citing the study that participants reported suffered from headaches decline steadily, the author infers a correlation between the use of S and headache. Depending on this infer, the author suggest that the average headaches suffered by citizen will decline in the future. However, the argument is flawed in several crucial respects, which render it wholly unpersuasive.

To begin with, based on the mere fact that S is similar to aspirin, the author unfairly assumes that S equals to A especially in the use of treatment. Yet, the author provides no evidence to substantiate this assumption. It is entirely possible that S is similar to A in other aspects, not the medical value. Without consider this possibility, the author cannot justifiably conclude that S can treat headaches.

To strengthen the argument, the author depends on a twenty-year study which involved several problems. First of all, the author assumes that the participants can be representative of citizens in Mentia. However, the author does not prove that the sample is statistically sufficient. Perhaps, participants in the study are more/less likely to get headache. If this scenario is true, the author cannot draw any conclusion from the study. Secondly, the author conclude that the rising use of S cause the decline of headaches just because they happens at the same time. Yet, it is possible that other factors, for example, the decreasing pressure of work, may also contribute to the decline. Without considering and accounting for these explanations, the author cannot simply attribute the decline to S.

Finally, even assuming that S will benefit patients with headaches, it is hasty to assert that use S as flavor additives for foods can steadily decline the headaches. There are some other factors that will increase the number of headaches, such as diets, pollutions, working pressure, irregular ways of living. Without proving that these factors will not also take place, the author cannot convince us that headaches will definitely decrease in the coming future.

In conclusion, the argument depends on a series of unwarranted assumptions. To bolster the argument, the author should provide clear evidence that (1)S can be used to treat headaches as aspirin do, (2)the participants in the study is representative of citizen in Mentia, (3)no other factors which can cause headaches exist. To better assess the argument, I need information about what side-effect does S have among people.