闭门造车多日了，3.29AW。。求拍，同时求互改敢死队

herbterUID: 3035060

76. The following appeared as part of an article in a health and beauty magazine.
"A group of volunteers participated in a study of consumer responses to the new Luxess face cream. Every morning for a month, they washed their faces with mild soap and then applied Luxess. At the end of that month, most volunteers reported a marked improvement in the way their skin looked and felt. Thus it appears that Luxess is truly effective in improving the condition of facial skin."

In this article, the author concludes that Luxess have positive effect on improving the condition of facial skin. To support this conclusion, the author provides results of a study of consumer responses to the new Luxess face cream. In addition, the author takes it granted for marked improvement in the way their skin looked and felt because of Luxess. Close scrutiny each of these facts, we would observe that the author's underlying reasoning lacks adequate concerns and the conclusion rests on a series of unwarranted assumption.

To begin with, the author's inference that it is Luxess that improving the situation of facial skin rests on the gratuitous assumption that the study results are statistically reliable and sufficiently realistic. Nevertheless, perhaps volunteers involved in the study cannot effectively constitute a sufficiently large and strongly representative of sample. Or perhaps volunteers fabricate the responses for their certain personnel interests, for profits giving by Luxess own. In short, the arguer's reasoning is definitely flawed unless the arguer can convince me that those and other possible scenarios are unlikely.

Even assuming that the survey results can accurately reflect the actual condition, the author unfairly assumes that increasing condition of facial skin is responsible for using Luxess, based on the fact that there isn't any other elements influence the situation. However, it is entirely possible that results from volunteers clearing their face frequently in the experiment. The author also overlooks the possibility that the weather condition, which might contribute to the condition of facial skin. Any of these variations and other universal differences might lead to the same results. Without accounting for and ruling out these alternative explanations, the author cannot bolster the recommendation.

Finally, even if I concede that the trend is attributable to Luxess, the author unjustifiably that the tendency would suit for all the people. The author obviously ignores the possibility that might lead to negative effects of Luxess. Ironically, in this case, Luxess is truly effective in decreasing the condition of facial skin. Such evidence would serve to undermine the author's claim that Luxess is definitely useful in changing peoples' facial skin.

To sum up, the author's conclusion is not persuade as it stands. To make it more logical and acceptable, the author must provide a through cost-benefit analysis of available alternatives such as results of the study are sufficiently scientific and it suit for everyone, and rule out factors other than that might be affecting current profits negatively.