小妹第一篇 argument113 请多多指教！

lululiu8412UID: 195354

This argument draws a conclusion that anyone concerned about eye damage from the Sun should avoid So-Low brand and instead either pay for higher-priced brand or wear no sunglasses at all. To substantiate the conclusion the arguer points out that a study demonstrates that So-Low sunglasses can actually increase the risk of damage to people's eyes by creating a false sense of security and a sharp increase in the incidence of vision problems in the sunny regions over the past three years. In addition, the arguer reasons that So-Low sunglasses block a smaller proportion of the Sun's rays, including the type of rays known to damage the eyes even when the person wearing the sunglasses feels no discomfort. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows, and I will discuss each of these in turn.

First of all, the argument relies on the study to support the conclusion, which seems reasonable and convincing at first glance, but the author fails to point out who did this study and how the study was conducted. If who conducted the study by themselves, the results are worthless as evidence to support the conclusion. For example, if the question were leading, people might echo with expected answer, thus the results would be extremely in sufficient and highly susceptible. In addition, this study also fails to inform that how many people were studied. Lacking of those important information, it is impossible to access the validity of the results. Given that only 10 people were studied, but there are 10,000,000 in this region, obviously, generalizability of the study are open to question. Factors as discussed above could explain results of the study and could undermine the generalizability and reliability of the results. Therefore, the study as evidence is not strongly enough to support the conclusion.

In addition, even if one accepts the study results, the argument is also questionable. The arguer take for granted that So-Low sunglasses block a smaller proportion of the Sun's rays, including the type of rays known to damage the eyes. However, there is no evidence stated in the argument to support this assumption. The arguer fail to provide some evidence such as study results that which type of rays known to damage the eyes even when the person wearing the sunglasses feels no discomfort does the So-low sunglasses fail to block. Or points out that how many rays do the So-low glasses fail to block than higher-priced brand.

Finally, the arguer suggests that people should pay for higher-priced or wear no sunglasses at all, which is totally unreasonable and susceptible. The arguer fail to consider the real reason that why the higher-priced glasses are expensive.
Perhaps the higher-priced glass company spent enormous money to advertise their production, which increases the cost of the glass, so the price of the glasses is high.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not support to what the arguer maintains. If the argument contains the given factors discussed above, it would have been more reasonable and convincing.

naiba369UID: 131655

up

ouenoUID: 194212

This argument draws a conclusion that anyone concerned about eye damage from the Sun should avoid So-Low brand and instead either pay for higher-priced brand or wear no sunglasses at all. To substantiate the conclusion the arguer points out that a study demonstrates that So-Low sunglasses can actually increase the risk of damage to people's eyes by creating a false sense of security and a sharp increase in the incidence of vision problems in the sunny regions over the past three years. In addition, the arguer reasons that So-Low sunglasses block a smaller proportion of the Sun's rays, including the type of rays known to damage the eyes even when the person wearing the sunglasses feels no discomfort. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows, and I will discuss each of these in turn.(mm,第一段要简写，而不是抄题目哦！字数最好在100左右)

First of all, the argument relies on the study to support the conclusion, which seems reasonable and convincing at first glance, but the author fails to point out who did this study and how the study was conducted. If who conducted the study by themselves（语法是不是有问题？）, the results are worthless as evidence to support the conclusion. For example, if the question were leading, people might echo with expected answer, thus the results would be extremely in sufficient and highly susceptible（susceptibility）. In addition, this study also fails to inform that how many people were studied. Lacking of（lack 是vt） those important information, it is impossible to access（assess） the validity of the results. Given that only 10 people were studied, but there are 10,000,000 in this region, obviously, generalizability of the study are open to question. Factors as discussed above could explain results of the study and could undermine the generalizability and reliability of the results. Therefore, the study as evidence is not strongly enough to support the conclusion.
（ms记得XDF老师说过study是弱攻击点，攻击次序上是否应放在第一位呢？而且需要攻击得面面俱到吗？）
In addition, even if one accepts the study results, the argument is also questionable. The arguer take（takes）for granted that So-Low sunglasses block a smaller proportion of the Sun's rays, including the type of rays known to damage the eyes. However, there is no evidence stated in the argument to support this assumption. The arguer fail to provide some evidence such as study results that which type of rays known to damage the eyes even when the person wearing the sunglasses feels no discomfort does the So-low sunglasses fail to block. Or points out that how many rays do the So-low glasses fail to block than higher-priced brand.（多举反例哦）

Finally, the arguer suggests that people should pay for higher-priced or wear no sunglasses at all, which is totally unreasonable and susceptible. The arguer fail to consider the real reason that why the higher-priced glasses are expensive.
Perhaps the higher-priced glass company spent enormous money to advertise their production, which increases the cost of the glass, so the price of the glasses is high.（这段就要比上两段充实了，因为有反例和结合论述）

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not support to what the arguer maintains. If the argument contains the given factors discussed above, it would have been more reasonable and convincing.（少用if，给人assume感觉，好象在驳论文中不常见，可以试着用it is possible that etc.）

lululiu8412UID: 195354

很中肯的一些建议~~谢啦~
argu刚开始写，你的这些评价很有用~~