argument123 严重超时，后果严重。

imjasonUID: 176604

共用时间：69分36秒     

------题目------
The following appeared in a health newsletter.
'Eating a heavy meal may increase the risk of heart attack. A recent survey of 2,000 people who had had a heart attack revealed that 158 of them said they had eaten a heavy meal within 24 hours before their heart attack, and 25 of them said they had eaten a heavy meal within 2 hours before their heart attack. Eating and digesting food releases hormones into the bloodstream and temporarily increases heart rate and blood pressure slightly. Both of these things put stress on the heart. Therefore, people who are at risk of having a heart attack can lower that risk by not overeating.'
------正文------
In this report, the arguer concludes that overeating will lead to higher risk of heart attack. To support this conclusion, the arguer lends a recent survey and a simple medical explanation. However, with close scrutiny of this argument, I find that this report is something misleading which render it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the survey in this report is based on the sample of 2000 people who had had a heart attack and behind this information I can not get more. In this case, I will suspect whether these samples are representative. Additionally, I will also argue that who operates this survey; or whether this operator is authoritative; or in which way the operator acquires and analyses these samples and this result, whether these samples are persuasive; or whether the result is standard and credible. As the reporter provides no such evidences to strengthen the recent survey, this argument is likely to be unpersuasive.

Meanwhile, even if this survey is authoritative, the number of 158 of the people in this survey who had had a heart attack within 24 hours and 25 of them within 2 hours, the reporter cites, which the total is 183, is a small part  of the 2000 samples, less than 10%. So I will not accept the survey's result. Further, besides the insufficient cases, there is also a flaw that it is entirely possible that some other things happen on these people who had eaten a heavy meal no matter within 24 hours or 2 before their heart attack. After all, 24 hours, even 2 hours, is a long time, especially in the case of heart attack. Or I can not ignore the coincidence between a heavy meal and the heart attack. Lacking all evidences above, I can not draw the conclusion that a heavy meal may lead to the heart attack.

Finally, even assuming that the heart attack may result from a heavy meal, the reporter in the simple medical explanation has indicated that the process of eating and digesting food just temporarily increases heart rate and blood pressure slightly, while making no further instructions that even this slightly increased pressure will undoubtedly cause the heart attack. Moreover, the arguer cites that it happens when eating and digesting food. If so, it will means that any people having the heart attack can not eat food any longer. Thus, the arguer can not convince me that the conclusion is acceptable.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive because of lacking all these evidences above. To strengthen it, the reporter should provide more evidences to prove the authority and credibility of this recent survey. And to better this argument, the author also should prove that those people having heart attack after a heavy meal are enough representative. I also need to know that eating and digesting food will surely influence the people with heart attack and cause it.

mythztUID: 162409

------正文------
In this report, the arguer concludes that overeating will lead to higher risk of heart attack. To support this conclusion, the arguer lends(adduces) a recent survey and a simple medical explanation. However, with close scrutiny of this argument, I find that this report is something(somewhat) misleading which renders it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the survey in this report is based on the sample of 2000 people who had had a heart attack and behind(except) this information I can not(cannot) get more. In this case, I will suspect whether these samples(直接用people吧，sample一般指一个整体，比如那2000人。你觉得呢？) are representative. Additionally, I will also argue that who operates this survey; or whether this operator is authoritative; or in which way the operator acquires and analyses these samples and this result, whether these samples are persuasive; or whether the result is standard and credible. (这么多个whether下来没看到一个具体的反例，力度不够)As the reporter provides no such evidences(不可数) to strengthen the recent survey, this argument is likely to be unpersuasive.

Meanwhile, even if this survey is authoritative, the number of 158 of the people in this survey who had had a heart attack within 24 hours and 25 of them within 2 hours, the reporter cites, which the total is 183, is a small part of the 2000 samples, less than 10%. So I will not accept the survey's result. Further, besides the insufficient cases, there is also a flaw that it is entirely possible that some other things happen on(occurred to) these people who had eaten a heavy meal no matter within 24 hours or 2(24 or 2 hours) before their heart attack. After all, 24 hours, even 2 hours, is a long time, especially in the case of heart attack. Or I can not ignore the coincidence between a heavy meal and the heart attack(没看明白这句). Lacking all evidences(evidence) above, I(怎么变成I draw了？) can not draw the conclusion that a heavy meal may lead to the heart attack.

Finally, even assuming that the heart attack may result from a heavy meal, the reporter in the simple medical explanation has indicated that the process of eating and digesting food just temporarily increases heart rate and blood pressure slightly, while making no further instructions that even this slightly increased pressure will undoubtedly cause the heart attack. Moreover, the arguer cites that it happens when eating and digesting food. If so, it will means(mean) that any people(person) having the(the去掉) heart attack can not eat food any longer. Thus, the arguer can not convince me that the conclusion is acceptable.
这段是用归谬法吗？我觉得还是攻击一下overeating和heart attack之间未必有因果关系会好点。让其他人再看看吧。
In sum, the argument is unpersuasive because of lacking all these evidences above. To strengthen it, the reporter should provide more evidences to prove the authority and credibility of this recent survey. And to better (evaluate?)this argument, the author also should prove that those people having heart attack after a heavy meal are enough representative(一般enough放在adj后). I also need to know that eating and digesting food will surely influence the people with heart attack and cause it.

只是粗略地看了一下，觉得还有个攻击点是not overeating必然会降低risk of heart attack吗？建议你把一二段融合在一块写，毕竟都是survey的问题。还有can not最好合在一起写，老美判卷的啊。才疏学浅，见谅！

imjasonUID: 176604

谢谢哈
那个攻击点确实没有考虑到，汗……

can not 的问题，我以前是连着写，但是有人说不好，要分开。
到底该怎么办呢

mythztUID: 162409

个人倾向于cannot，这个似乎是美式写法。

imjasonUID: 176604

研究下……
呵呵

thminUID: 192642

In this report, the arguer concludes that overeating will lead to higher risk of heart attack. To support this conclusion, the arguer lends cites a recent survey and a simple medical explanation. However, with close scrutiny of this argument, I find that this report is somethingsomewhat misleading which 不清楚这个which是指哪个啊，你应该是说has some critical flaws或者suffers some fallacies之类的，后面再连which render it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the survey in this report is based on the sample of 2000 people who had had a heart attack and这里似乎用转折语气更妥:butbehind this information I can not get more这一小句觉得有点不太地道，感觉像没有完似的. In this case, I will suspect whether these samples are representative.这一句似乎没有给出具体的论证,直接就转入下一句,很遗憾 Additionally, I will also argue that who operates this survey; or whether this operator is authoritative; or in which way the operator acquires and analyses these samples and this result, whether these samples are persuasive; or whether the result is standard and credible. As the reporter provides no such evidences to strengthen the recent survey, this argument is likely to be unpersuasive.我不知道可不可以这样写,如果你说的这些有问题,基本上每个引用了survey的argument都有这个问题了,是不是有点钻牛角尖了.一点拙见,仅供参考了

Meanwhile, even if this survey is authoritative, the number of 158 of the people in this survey who had had a heart attack within 24 hours and 25 of them within 2 hours这句的意思有问题,你没有提到在24小时内和2小时内overeat的问题,你看是不是句子太长导致把这部份给遗漏了?, the reporter cites, which the total is 183, is a small part of the 2000 samples, less than 10%. So I will not accept the survey's resultresult是客观存在的事实,你不接受的应该是arguer从中得出的conclusion. Further, 从这里开始楼主开始说的是另一个逻辑错误,不如另起一段再写,指出overeating和heart attack之间的没有必然的因果关系,扩充一下,指出可能还有其他可能的relevant factors等等besides the insufficient cases, there is also a flaw that it is entirely possible 这一块显得有点redundant,直接说it is entirely possible …that some other things happen happened on to these people who had eaten a heavy meal no matter within 24 hours or 2 before their heart attack. After all, 24 hours, even 2 hours, is a long time, especially in the case of heart attack. Or I can not我见过分开写cannot的不多 ignore the coincidence between a heavy meal and the heart attack. Lacking all evidences above, I can not draw the conclusion that a heavy meal may lead to the heart attack.

Finally, even assuming that the heart attack may result from a heavy meal, the reporter in the simple medical explanation这里的reporter in the simple medical explanation是什么意思啊 has indicated that the process of eating and digesting food just temporarily increases heart rate and blood pressure slightly, while making no further instructions that even this slightly increased pressure will undoubtedly cause the heart attack. Moreover, the arguer cites that it happens when eating and digesting food. If so, it will means will means? that any people anyone having the 改成a heart attack can not eat food any longer. Thus, the arguer can not convince me that the conclusion is acceptable.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive because of lacking all these evidences above. 感觉lacking all these evidence放在这里不太合适,因为这样你就假定了所有的错误都是证据的缺失To strengthen it, the reporter should provide more evidencesevidence好像是不可数的吧 to prove the authority and credibility of this recent survey. And to better better this argument, the author also should should also感觉更加顺口些 prove that those people having heart attack after a heavy meal are enough representativerepresentative enough. I also need to know that eating and digesting food will surely influence the people with heart attack and cause it.

就像我在修改的文中指出的那一段,我觉得你应该把第三段中further以后的内容独立成一段,因为这个错误是比较明显的,也比较重要的错误. 然后把前面的部份和上一段内容合并起来,专门针对survey的问题列出一段. 此外,个别的语句欠通顺.
不过,这个题目好象有点难,我第一眼看的时候都没有找到特别明显的错误. 写成这样还是不错的,呵呵.向你学习.