一共三篇，请君任选。

yushuinanrongUID: 2788112

51，（医疗/建议/对比）The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills(3), although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced(1,2). Therefore, all patients(4) who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics(5) as part of their treatment."

The author of this newsletter concludes that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify this conclusion the author provides a study of two groups of patients ,the result of which, shows that the first group taking antibiotics significantly recuperate faster than the second group who only take sugar. I find this argument specious on several grounds.
To begin with, the author fails to provide any evidence that the result of the study are statistical reliable. In order to establish a strong correlation with antibiotics and the recuperation of muscle strain, the study’s sample must be sufficient in size and representative of overall patients suffered from muscle strain. lacking such evidence the author simply cannot convince me that antibiotics can be efficacious .
In addition, even if the result of the study, to some extent, are reliable, it is impossible to access the author’s conclusion. Since he has not considered the factors that the first group who take antibiotics are treated by a doctor who specialize in sports medicine. in sharp contrast ,the second group were treated under a general physician who might not familiar with injures on muscle strain . what’ more, the first group took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment, but the author has not informed me whether the second group regularly take pills. It is entirely possible that it’s just the difference of doctor’s experience and patients’ attitude towards the treatment that lead to the result. Without ruling out this alternative explanation, the author cannot justifiably give any conclusion.
Finally, given that the antibiotics truly has efficacy on treating muscle strain, the author assume too hastily that the antibiotics is fit for all patients diagnosed with muscle strain. he fails to consider the factor that different people have different body conditions ,it is likely that some people would benefit from the antibiotics but some might have no change after taking antibiotics or even become worsen. Besides, the author overlooks the possibility that taking antibiotics may result in other unknown side-effects. In short, without evidence that can rule out these considerations, the authors conclusion remains dubious at best.
In sum, as it stands the argument is widely unpersuasive. To bolster it the author must show the fact that antibiotics can contribute to the recuperation of muscle strain in a direct way. perhaps making a reliable nation-wide study involving representative patients and sufficient in size is a good choice. To better assess the argument it would be useful to know whether the antibiotics have side-effects. It also need a long run and scientific study to testify.


142, （保健/论断/并列）The article entitled 'Eating Iron' in last month's issue of Eating for Health reported that a recent study(1) found a correlation(2) between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Further, it is well established that there is a link(3) between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is high in iron. On the basis of the study and the well-established link between red meat and heart disease, we can conclude that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.
Answer:

The arguer of this article conclude that the relation between high iron levels and heart disease is most probably a function of the relation between red meat and heart disease. To justify conclusion the author shows a recent survey revealing that , in the diet, high levels of iron which the red meat contains much, may increase the risk of heart disease. I find this argument specious on several grounds.
First of all, the arguer provides no evidence that the survey is statistic reliable. in order to establish a strong correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, the sample must be sufficient in size and representative of overall population suffered from heart disease. Lacking evidence of a sufficient representative sample, the author cannot justifiably rely on the study to draw any conclusion whatsoever.
In addition, the arguer is unfairly established a link between large amount of red meat in the diet and heart disease. There are many other factors contributing to the risk of heart disease. unhealthy work schedule can be a possible factors. Besides, overeating, lack of sleep, even a genetic propensity may result in the heart disease. Lacking evidence that the heart disease suffers whom the study observe are similar in all the respects above mentioned, the arguer cannot justifiably conclude that high iron levels may increase the risk of heart disease.
Finally, even assuming that high iron level is truly a factor responsible for the heart disease. It is still unfair to conclude that a high-iron level diet, including red meat, promote heart disease.
The arguer cannot reasonably conclude that this causal relationship fully explain the study’s result. The arguer falsely to consider other food that high in iron, and the participants of the study may eat this food instead of red meat. Without accounting for this the arguer cannot convincingly conclude from the study that red meat is the chief cause of heart disease.
In sum ,the arguer is logically flawed and unconvincing as it stands. To bolster it the arguer must provide more clear evidence that high level iron contributes to the heart disease. The arguer also needs to provide clear evidence that it is the red meat rather than other food high in iron that make person more likely to suffer from the heart disease. To better evaluate the reliability of the study upon which the arguer’ conclusion depends ,I would need more information about the size of the sample and representative of the suffer of the disease.
144.
According to a poll of 200 charitable organizations, donations of money to nonprofit groups increased by nearly 25 percent last year, though not all charities gained equally. Religious groups gained the most (30 percent), followed by environmental groups (23 percent), whereas educational institutions experienced only a very small increase in donations (3 percent). This poll indicates that more people are willing and able to give money to charities but that funding for education is not a priority for most people. These differences in donation rates must result from the perception that educational institutions are less in need of donations than are other kinds of institutions.

Answer：

The arguer cites a poll showing that the amount of charitable donations increased last year, but the increase to educational institutions was far less than other funding groups. Based on this poll the arguer concludes that more people are willing to donate to the charitable organizations, but education is not a priority for most people. The arguer also concludes that the discrepancy of the donations result from the perception that educational institution are less in need of money.I find this argument logically unconvincing in several aspects.

First of all, the arguer provides no evidence that the poll is statistically reliable.
in order to draw a strong conclusion ,the simple must sufficient in size and representative of overall charitable organizations. Since different areas might have different situations, the arguer must take this factor into consideration. Lacking evidence of a sufficient representative sample, the arguer cannot justifiably rely on the poll to draw any conclusion whatsoever.

In addition, the claim that the funding for education is not a priority for most people is unpersuasive. The arguer falsely to provide statistics of the former years. Thus, it is entirely possible that the funding for education occupied the largest share of the donations, as a result of which, the increase of donations may be inconspicuous. It also possible that it is the unscientific utilize of the donations which disappointed the donators that lead to the little increase in donations. Without ruling out these possible explanations, the arguer cannot convincingly conclude that the funding for education is not a priority for most people.

Finally, the arguer unfairly assumes that the difference in donation rates results from the perception that educational institutions are less in need of donations than any other kinds of institutions. There are many other factors can contributes to the result. Perhaps the people’s perception is that educational institutions are more likely than other types to squander and misuse；or perhaps more people are interested in religions and be favor to make a contribution to the protection of our environment. Such evidence would serve to undermine arguer’s claim .

In sum, the arguer is logically flawed and unconvincing as it stands. To strength it the arguer must assure that the poll is statistical reliable and can accurately reflects donation rates. The arguer must also provide former years’ statistics ,based on which we can judge whether the claim that funding for education is not a priority for most people is true. To better to assess the conclusion, the arguer must provide clear evidence for the claimed perception about the need of educational perceptions.


TOPIC: ARGUMENT148 - The following appeared in the editorial section of Monroetown's local newspaper.

"Mayor Brown was recently re-elected by a clear majority of 52 percent of Monroetown's voters. Her re-election, however, does not show that most people in our town favored Mayor Brown's proposal for tax reduction over that of her opponent, Mr. Greene, who proposed raising taxes to improve education. It has been shown that voters nationwide tend to re-elect people already in office, regardless of candidates' proposals. In fact, a local survey after the election showed most people in Monroetown disagreed with Mayor Brown's proposal. Clearly most people in Monroetown favor improving education and therefore approve of Mr. Greene's proposal despite the fact that they did not vote for him."



In this argument the arguer points out a nationwide tendency that voters prefer to re-elect people already in office. The arguer also cites a local survey showing most people in Monroetown(MT) are disagree with Mayor Brown's proposal. Based on this evidence the arguer conclude that the in spite of the fact that the majority in MT did not vote for Mr.Green ,they would like to improve education and thus approve of Mr.Green's
proposal.I find this argument logically unconvincing in several aspects.
First of all, the arguer unfairly assumes that the nationwide tendency can specially apply to MT' residents. Different cities have various situations. It is entirely possible that residents in MT are not care more about the proposals than the qualification and experience. It even possible that believing young government are imaginative and full of energy ,the residents in MT
prefer young candidates without much political experience. Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer's conclusion is dubious at all.
In addition, the arguer provides no evidence that the local survey is statistic reliable. In order to establish a strong conclusion that most voters are disagreed with Brown's proposal, the sample must be sufficient in size and representative of overall voters. It should also take the voters' age, sex and vocation into consideration. Therefore, to convince me that the most people in MT are not favor of Brown's proposal, the arguer must provide more statistic evidence.
Finally, the arguer suffers from "either-or" reasoning. Based on the fact that residents in MT are opposed to Brown's proposal, the arguer unfairly concludes that they are in favor of Green's proposal. However the arguer overlooks the possibility that the residents neither care about the proposal for tax reduction nor the proposal in education. What they truly concern about might be the traffic, food price or the social welfare.
In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stand. To bolster it the arguer must provide clearer evidence that the elect situation in MT can reflect the nation tendency. To better evaluate the argument i would need to know whether the local survey is sufficient in size and take the voter's individual factors into consideration. I would also to know what topic do the residents in MT care about. Finally i would need to know what portion of MT's resident voted in the election, and what portion of these resident were shown by the survey to oppose Brown’s proposal