ARGUMENT104，第一次限时（1小时，汗），求拍

SpriteTCUID: 2765113

TOPIC: ARGUMENT104 - One kind of brain-scanning device is used by doctors to monitor normal as well as abnormal activity in a patient's brain. The device provides precise measurements of blood flow in the brain, a known indicator of how the brain is working. Unfortunately, the device requires patients to remain completely still with their heads in the scanning machine, which makes a very loud noise. Under these uncomfortable conditions, it is doubtful that doctors can get accurate measurements. A new head-mounted device that measures eye movements rather than blood flow and allows patients to move around will undoubtedly provide better brain measurements. Thus, the new head-mounted device should replace the older device at all hospitals and research institutions.
WORDS: 429          TIME: 01:00:00         DATE: 2011/1/19 17:48:04

The argument seems to be convincing at first glance, but actually fallacious indeed. It overlooks the crucial premise that whether the new head-mounted device can indicate how the brain works remained to be questioned. Moreover, the author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to comparison between both devices.

First of all, no sufficient information about the accurateness of the new device is offered to indicate we can use it to monitor the activity of a patient's brain. It is very likely that the new device can just feed back little precise condition when brain is working or  receive some susceptible datas, either of which will severely affect the judgment of   doctors and then ruin the quality of the treatment. The premise lays the foundation for the following reasoning, without which the argument just like a castle in the air. To better illustrate the point, more evidence about the feasibility of new device is needed.

Granted that this assumption is valid, we cannot still make the hasty inference that the new head-mounted device precedes the older one just because that loud noise and strict condition that remaining completely still when testing bringing by the latter. No evidence shows that the uncomfortable condition directly or indirectly have a dramatic effect on the measurements. Besides, the unwanted side effect of new device may be ignored. It is quite possible that measuring eye movements will exert heavy pressure to eyes ending up in damaging eyesight. Without the credible information, we cannot rule out other interferences and bolster the recommendation.

Finally, even if the evidence turns out to support the inferences above, the author just simply conclude that the new head-mounted device should replace the older devices at all hospitals and research institutions yet neither any forceful evidence nor common sense is provided to support the necessity. Does the new device cost much more than the old ones? Do all hospitals and research institutions have the sufficient budget to afford them? How often the device need to be maintained to ensure the accuracy? Do hospitals and research institutions have the same standard in choosing brain-scanning device? All these factors should be considered before make the final conclusion.

Overall, the original intention on improving the medical condition of hospitals and institutions is understandable, however, ignoring other significant elements such as the feasibility and unwanted side effect may eventually result in the failure of inferring accurate conclusion. The argument could be better-reasoned by providing more evidence on the feedback of patients who used the new device and the cost performance.

doraliuUID: 2842061

占楼，改之~~~话说第一段就看起来怪不舒服的

doraliuUID: 2842061

The argument seems to be convincing at first glance, but （it is)actually fallacious indeed. It overlooks the crucial premise that whether the new head-mounted device can indicate how the brain works remained to be questioned(读起来俺吃奶的力气都用上了，it overlooks the crucial premise that可不可以不要？）. Moreover, the author fails to compare other  necessary elements  between  these two devices.

doraliuUID: 2842061

明儿个放假了接着改。。。。

First of all, no sufficient information about the accurateness of the new device is offered to indicate that the device could monitor the activity of a patient's brain. It is very likely that the new device can just feed back little precise condition when brain is working or  receive some susceptible datas, either of which will severely affect the judgment of   doctors and then ruin the quality of the treatment. The premise lays the foundation for the following reasoning, without which the argument just like a castle in the air. To better illustrate the point, more evidence about the feasibility of new device is needed.

Granted that this assumption is valid, we cannot still make the hasty inference that the new head-mounted device precedes the older one just because that loud noise and strict condition that remain completely still when testing bringing by the latter. No evidence shows that the uncomfortable condition directly or indirectly have a dramatic effect这个还蛮好的 on the measurements. Besides, the unwanted side effect of new device may be ignored. It is quite possible that measuring eye movements will exert heavy pressure to eyes ending up in damaging eyesight. Without the credible information, we cannot rule out other interferences and bolster the recommendation.

Finally, even if the evidence turns out to support the inferences above, the author just simply conclude that the new head-mounted device should replace the older devices at all hospitals and research institutions， yet neither any forceful evidence nor common sense is provided to support the necessity. Does the new device cost much more than the old ones? Do all hospitals and research institutions have the sufficient budget to afford them? How often the device need to be maintained to ensure the accuracy? Do hospitals and research institutions have the same standard in choosing brain-scanning device? All these factors should be considered before make the final conclusion.
这段论证也蛮好的

Overall, the original intention on improving the medical condition of hospitals and institutions is understandable, however, ignoring other significant elements such as the feasibility and unwanted side effect may eventually result in the failure of inferring accurate conclusion. The argument could be better-reasoned by providing more evidence on the feedback of patients who used the new device and the cost performance.

第一个，没证据说明新的更好
第二个，新的可能有其他负作用
第三，不能说都用。
思路很清楚说。。。。。

加油加油~~~