argument168

haiyaUID: 187989

----题目----
Typically, as people age, their bone mass decreases, making them more vulnerable to bone fractures. A recent study concludes that the most effective way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life is to take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily. The three-year study followed a group of French women in their eighties who were nursing-home residents. The women were given daily supplements of twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium. In addition, the women participated in a light weightlifting program. After three years, these women showed a much lower rate of hip fractures than is average for their age.

---文章----
In the argument, the arguer recommends that persons should take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D so as to diminish the risk of fractures in later life most effectively. To buttress the conclusion, the result of a three-study among a group of French women in their eighties demonstrate a relationship between twice recommended does of vitamin C and calcium and decreasing trend of fracture. However, this argument suffers several critical fallacies.

Firstly, from the study quoted in the argument, we find no sign of such procedures for random sampling, and have good reason to doubt if the sample is representative enough to reflect the general effect of persons as a whole. Common sense tells us that man and women are different in physiological condition as well as teenagers and the old are, the arguer commits a hasty generalization. Even if women who have similar conditions such as age and nursing-home residents, it is no guarantee that they will get similar benefits since we have no idea about the health, character, life environment and so forth of these women. It is likely that considerate nursing and careful behavior in daily life made them invulnerable to fracture.

Secondly, the arguer’s reasoning linking lower rate of French women’s hip fracture with taking twice recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium seems reasonable on the surface, but some elements, such as a light weightlifting program and other ingredients in supplement, fail to be taken into account. Through the weightlifting, these women might be benefited and have a good physical condition, which made them prevent themselves from fractures. Moreover, other unknown ingredients in the supplements which were provide to the women daily stifled the lapsing of bone mass. Given these possible scenarios, the fact that the lower rate of the women’s hip fracture proves nothing about the decreasing rate of hip fracture by taking more vitamin D and calcium.

Thirdly, even assuming more vitamin D and calcium can prevent hip fracture, it is nevertheless impossible to assess the author’s broader contention that twice recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium reduce the risk of fracture. The argument simply equates fracture with hip fracture. Obviously, it is not reasonable. The mere fact that hip fractures less happened cannot substantiate all types of fracture decreased. It might, in fact, these women suffer more from neck or leg fracture and the whole tendency to have fracture rise. Therefore, without more information about the whole fracture condition, I cannot accept the author’s sweeping generalization about the reduction of whole fracture.

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate the process of research is scientific and considerable. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the relationship between taking twice recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium and restoring bone mass.

圣光UID: 193720

In the argument, the arguer recommends that persons should take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D so as to diminish the risk of fractures in later life most effectively. (这里似乎不必要，读起来就觉得不通顺)To buttress the conclusion, the result of a three-study(是three-year study吧?) among a group of French women in their eighties demonstrate (demomstrates)a relationship between twice recommended [U]does[/U]  of vitamin C and calcium and decreasing trend of fracture. However, this argument suffers several critical fallacies.

Firstly, from the study quoted in the argument, we find no sign of such procedures for random sampling, and have good reason to doubt if the sample is representative enough to reflect the general effect of persons as a whole. Common sense tells us that man and women are different in physiological condition as well as teenagers and the old are, the arguer commits a hasty generalization. Even if women who have similar conditions such as age and nursing-home residents, it (是不是there啊?)is no guarantee that they will get similar benefits since we have no idea about the health, character, life environment and so forth of these women. It is likely that considerate nursing and careful behavior in daily life made them invulnerable to fracture.

Secondly, the arguer’s reasoning linking lower rate of French women’s hip fracture with taking twice recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium seems reasonable on the surface, but some elements, such as a light weightlifting program and other ingredients in supplement, fail to be taken into account. Through the weightlifting, these women might be benefited and have a good physical condition, which made them prevent themselves from fractures.(觉得不对,但是不知道怎么改,是不是把made them 去掉好些?) Moreover, other unknown ingredients in the supplements which were provide (provided)to the women daily stifled the lapsing of bone mass. Given these possible scenarios, the fact that the lower rate of the women’s hip fracture proves nothing about the decreasing rate of hip fracture by taking more vitamin D and calcium.

Thirdly, even assuming more vitamin D and calcium can prevent hip fracture, it is nevertheless impossible to assess the author’s broader contention that twice recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium reduce (reduces)the risk of fracture. The argument simply equates fracture with hip fracture. Obviously, it is not reasonable. The mere fact that hip fractures less happened cannot substantiate all types of fracture decreased. It might, in fact, these women suffer more from neck or leg fracture and the whole tendency to have fracture rise.(rises) Therefore, without more information about the whole fracture condition, I cannot accept the author’s sweeping generalization about the reduction of whole fracture.

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate the process of research is scientific and considerable. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the relationship between taking twice recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium and restoring bone mass.


结构和逻辑应该没有问题,攻击点也应该没有问题,多注意一些语言方面琐碎的事情就好了.

louaciUID: 159481

----题目----
Typically, as people age, their bone mass decreases, making them more vulnerable to bone fractures. A recent study concludes that the most effective way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life is to take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily. The three-year study followed a group of French women in their eighties who were nursing-home residents. The women were given daily supplements of twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium. In addition, the women participated in a light weightlifting program. After three years, these women showed a much lower rate of hip fractures than is average for their age.

---文章----
In the argument, the arguer recommends that persons（people) should take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D so as to diminish the risk of fractures in later life most effectively. To buttress the conclusion, the result of a three-study among a group of French women in their eighties demonstrate(demonstrates) a relationship between twice recommended does of vitamin C(D) and calcium and decreasing trend of fracture. However, this argument suffers(from) several critical fallacies.

Firstly, from the study quoted in the argument, we find no sign of such procedures for random sampling, and have good reason to doubt if the sample is representative enough to reflect the general effect of persons as a whole. Common sense tells us that man and women are different in physiological condition as well as teenagers and the old are, the arguer commits a hasty generalization. Even if women who have similar conditions such as age and nursing-home residents, it is no guarantee that they will get similar benefits since we have no idea about the health, character, life environment and so forth of these women. It is likely that considerate nursing and careful behavior in daily life made them invulnerable to fracture.

Secondly, the arguer’s reasoning linking lower rate of French women’s hip fracture with taking twice recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium seems reasonable on the surface, but some elements, such as a light weightlifting program and other ingredients in supplement, fail to be taken into account. Through the weightlifting, these women might be benefited and have a good physical condition, which made them prevent themselves from fractures. Moreover, other unknown ingredients in the supplements which were provide(provided) to the women daily stifled the lapsing of bone mass. Given these possible scenarios, the fact that the lower rate of the women’s hip fracture proves nothing about the decreasing rate of hip fracture by taking more vitamin D and calcium.

Thirdly, even assuming more vitamin D and calcium can prevent hip fracture, it is nevertheless impossible to assess the author’s broader contention that twice recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium reduce the risk of fracture. The argument simply equates fracture with hip fracture. Obviously, it is not reasonable. The mere fact that hip fractures less happened cannot substantiate all types of fracture decreased. It might, in fact, these women suffer more from neck or leg fracture and the whole tendency to have fracture rise. Therefore, without more information about the whole fracture condition, I cannot accept the author’s sweeping generalization about the reduction of whole fracture.

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate the process of research is scientific and considerable. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the relationship between taking twice recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium and restoring bone mass.

  个人觉得蛮标准的驳论文样子，整体批驳得比较具体有条理，稍微注意下一些可以避免的语法小错：）

haiyaUID: 187989

谢谢二位，我现在的问题还是要多多练，练出自己的模版来。