Argument57 出现过两次的机井题！！必回拍！！

alinazhUID: 187151

Argument57 The following appeared in a newsletter on nutrition and health.
"Although the multimineral Zorba pill was designed as a simple dietary supplement, a study of first-time ulcer patients who took Zorba suggests that Zorba actually helps prevent ulcers. The study showed that only 25 percent of those ulcer patients who took Zorba under a doctor's direction developed new ulcers, compared to a 75 percent recurrence rate among ulcer patients who did not take Zorba. Clearly, then, Zorba will be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers and if health experts inform the general public of this fact, many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well."

In this argument, the author concludes that Zorba will be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers and if health experts inform the general public of this fact, many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well. In order to prove the conclusion, the author provides the evidence of a study on comparing the first-time ulcer patients taking Zorba with ones not taking. However, after the close scrutiny, we find that the evidence leads little support on this conclusion.

First of all, the author fails to convince us that Zorba can be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers. Although the author gives us a study, the number and results of the study is not convincing. Firstly, we do not know that the detailed information and situations of two groups of those ulcer patients. It is perhaps that the physical abilities and situations of patients of taking Zorba group are originally better than ones of not taking Zorba group. Thus, even if they also did not take Zorba, the former group can have the little possibility of the recurrent ulcers. Secondly, besides we know that the two groups have the difference of taking Zorba, the author fails to assure that their other medical treatments are the same. If the former group's patients may be treated a more famous doctor in the ulcers and taking other more efficient medicines than the latter group, there will be not evidence that the fewer recurrent ulcers in the group taking Zorba is due to take the Zorba rather then other reasons. Thirdly, the author also does not provide any scientific and medical information and knowledge, as well as experimental data to prove that Zorba is effective in preventing recurrent ulcer from the scientific orientation, besides only one study. Therefore, the author does not make us believe that Zorba can effectively prevent recurrent ulcers.

In the second, even if we agree that the first evidence is reasonable, the author can not assume that Zorba can prevent first-time ulcers as well. It is becasue they have the different preconditions. For recurrent ulcer patients, their precondition is that they have had the first- time ulcers. But, for healthy people, they have nothing about the ulcers. So, the author can not say that Zorba can be used for treating the both different people with different situations. Thus the author fails to convince us that Zorba is also useful for the healthy people to prevent ulcers.

In conclusion, this argument is unreasonable. To strengthen author’s conclusion, he/ she should provide more details, such as scientific evidences, the detailed number and information of the study, and other similar studies' reports and results.

alinazhUID: 187151

up up 必回拍！！

zhoulin00001UID: 189304

我先占了

zhoulin00001UID: 189304

Argument57 The following appeared in a newsletter on nutrition and health.
"Although the multimineral Zorba pill was designed as a simple dietary supplement, a study of first-time ulcer patients who took Zorba suggests that Zorba actually helps prevent ulcers. The study showed that only 25 percent of those ulcer patients who took Zorba under a doctor's direction developed new ulcers, compared to a 75 percent recurrence rate among ulcer patients who did not take Zorba. Clearly, then, Zorba will be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers and if health experts inform the general public of this fact, many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well."

In this argument, the author concludes that Zorba will be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers and if health experts inform the general public of this fact, many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well. In order to prove the conclusion, the author provides the evidence of a study on comparing the first-time ulcer patients taking Zorba with ones not taking. However, after the close scrutiny, we find that the evidence leads little support on this conclusion.

First of all, the author fails to convince us that Zorba can be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers. Although the author gives us a study, the number and results of the study is not convincing. Firstly, we do not know that the detailed information and situations of two groups of those ulcer patients. It is perhaps that the physical abilities and situations of patients of taking Zorba group 可以这么用？are originally better than ones of not taking Zorba group. Thus, even if they also did not take Zorba, the former group can have the little possibility of the recurrent ulcers. Secondly, besides we know that the two groups have the difference of taking Zorba？没看懂, the author fails to assure that their other medical treatments are the same. If the former group's patients may be treated a more famous doctor in the ulcers and taking other more efficient medicines than the latter group, there will be not evidence 不好，应改为说没有理由说that the fewer recurrent ulcers in the group taking Zorba is due to take the Zorba rather then other reasons. Thirdly, the author also does not provide any scientific and medical information and knowledge, as well as experimental data to prove that Zorba is effective in preventing recurrent ulcer from the scientific orientation, besides only one study有点勉强. Therefore, the author does not make us believe that Zorba can effectively prevent recurrent ulcers.

In the second, even if we agree that the first evidence is reasonable, the author can not assume that Zorba can prevent first-time ulcers as well. It is becasue they have the different preconditions. For recurrent ulcer patients, their precondition is that they have had the first- time ulcers. But, for healthy people, they have nothing about the ulcers. So, the author can not say that Zorba can be used for treating the both different people with different situations. Thus the author fails to convince us that Zorba is also useful for the healthy people to prevent ulcers.

In conclusion, this argument is unreasonable. To strengthen author’s conclusion, he/ she should provide more details, such as scientific evidences, the detailed number and information of the study, and other similar studies' reports and results.

zhoulin00001UID: 189304

补充一下
总体不错， 错误找的很好
语言上再加强一下，加油

alinazhUID: 187151

3Q!!up

flyingwindUID: 189320

In this argument, the author concludes that Zorba will be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers and if health experts inform the general public of this fact, many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well. In order to prove the conclusion, the author provides the evidence of a study on comparing the first-time ulcer patients taking Zorba with ones not taking. However, after the close scrutiny, we find that the evidence leads little support on this conclusion. [有没摸板的嫌疑呢]

First of all, the author fails to convince us that Zorba can be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers. Although the author gives us a study, the number and results of the study is not convincing[这样好不？study里面没体number，只有比例啊]. Firstly, we do not know that the detailed information and situations of two groups of those ulcer patients. It is perhaps[这个是adv的哦！] that the physical abilities and situations of patients of taking Zorba group are originally better than ones of not taking Zorba group. Thus, even if they also did not take Zorba, the former group can have [the去掉] little possibility of the recurrent ulcers. Secondly, besides[你用在这里的beside是要总结上文的吧，那是prep.吧，可以带从句子吗] we know that the two groups have the difference[不只一个difference嘛 many differences] of taking Zorba, the author fails to assure that their other medical treatments are the same. If the former group's patients may be treated[by under] a more famous doctor in the ulcers[？] and taking other more efficient medicines than the latter group, [there will be not evidence？] that the fewer recurrent ulcers in the group taking Zorba is due to take[错误！后面接社么？] the Zorba rather then other reasons. Thirdly, the author also does not provide any scientific and medical information and knowledge, as well as experimental data to prove that Zorba is effective in preventing recurrent ulcer from the scientific orientation, besides only one study. Therefore, the author does not make us believe that Zorba can effectively prevent recurrent ulcers.

In the second[？？不对把], even if we agree that the first evidence[哪个 evidence清楚点好点哦] is reasonable, the author can not assume that Zorba can prevent first-time ulcers as well. It is becasue they have the different preconditions. For recurrent ulcer patients, their precondition is that they have had the first- time ulcers. But, for healthy people, they have nothing about the ulcers. So, the author can not say that Zorba can be used[useful] for treating the both different people with different situations. Thus the author fails to convince us that Zorba is also useful for the healthy people to prevent ulcers.

In conclusion, this argument is unreasonable. To strengthen author’s conclusion, he/ she should provide more details, such as scientific evidences, the detailed number and information of the study, and other similar studies' reports and results.

[这个argu 的错误处大致是这个样子的
一个是study
一个是错误推广
但是作者的第1个body的组织不太成功。里面的逻辑关系层次不清楚
还少了关于样本代表性的问题的质疑
语法有一些问题，连接不是很smooth
第2点写的有些不痛不痒的。写了不少，但是感觉没有说透彻，有点边缘]