Argument104 第11篇 欢迎拍转，拍者必回拍

thiohuUID: 193100

Argument104  第11篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：29分25秒     401words
从2005年3月8日13时4分到2005年3月8日13时29分

One kind of brain-scanning device is used by doctors to monitor normal as well as abnormal activity in a patient's brain. The device provides precise measurements of blood flow in the brain, a known indicator of how the brain is working. Unfortunately, the device requires patients to remain completely still with their heads in the scanning machine, which makes a very loud noise. Under these uncomfortable conditions, it is doubtful that doctors can get accurate measurements. A new head-mounted device that measures eye movements rather than blood flow and allows patients to move around will undoubtedly provide better brain measurements. Thus, the new head-mounted device should replace the older device at all hospitals and research institutions.

In this argument, the author recommend substituting the older device which monitors human brain activity by measurements of blood flow with the new head-mounted device measuring eye movement. To support his recommendation, the author assumes that the new device is more accurate. However, the argument is flawed in several critical aspects.

In the first place, the fact that scanning machine using in the older device makes clamorous noise is insufficient evidence that the older device cannot provide accurate measurement. It is entire possible that the scanning process takes only a few seconds, and thus the patient is able to endure this loud noise to keep dormant in the measurement. It is also possible that the patients are allowed to wear a soundproof device during the measurement. Any of these scenarios, if is true, then the author cannot convince me that all the hospitals and research institutions should use the new device rather than the older one.

In the second place, the author assumes that the new device is accurate. The only evidence provided to support this assumption is that the new device measures eye movement and it allows patients to move around.  However, it is entirely possible that this device cannot provide precise measurement of eye movement. Even if the new device accurately determines eye movement, perhaps the measurements of eye movement cannot precisely monitor the activity of human brain. In short, the author fails to provide evidence that the new device is accurate in monitoring human brain.

Finally, even if the new device is more accurate than the older one, the argument relies on the assumption that the new device should substitute the older one in all hospitals and institutions. Yet, the author overlooks other aspects of the two devices.Perhaps the older device is accurate enough to meet the requirement of hospitals and research institutions, though it is not as precise as the new one. Or perhaps the price of new is exorbitant for these institutions and hospitals to apply. All these perspectives should be considered before replacing the older device with the older one.

In sum, the argument is untenable as it stands. To support it, the author should provide stronger evidence that the new device is in fact more precise than the older one. To better evaluate the argument, I need to know the prices of the two devices and the accuracy requirement of the hospitals and institution.

ctxUID: 199330

One kind of brain-scanning device is used by doctors to monitor normal as well as abnormal activity in a patient's brain. The device provides precise measurements of blood flow in the brain, a known indicator of how the brain is working. Unfortunately, the device requires patients to remain completely still with their heads in the scanning machine, which makes a very loud noise. Under these uncomfortable conditions, it is doubtful that doctors can get accurate measurements. A new head-mounted device that measures eye movements rather than blood flow and allows patients to move around will undoubtedly provide better brain measurements. Thus, the new head-mounted device should replace the older device at all hospitals and research institutions.



In this argument, the author recommend substituting the older device which monitors human brain activity by measurements of blood flow with the new head-mounted device measuring eye movement. To support his recommendation, the author assumes that the new device is more accurate. However, the argument is flawed in several critical aspects.

In the first place, the fact that scanning machine using in the older device makes clamorous noise is insufficient evidence (to support the conclusion) that the older device cannot provide accurate measurement. It is entire (entirely) possible that the scanning process takes only a few seconds, and thus the patient is able to endure this loud noise to keep dormant in the measurement. It is also possible that the patients are allowed to wear a soundproof device during the measurement. Any of these scenarios, if is true, then the author cannot convince me that all the hospitals and research institutions should use the new device rather than the older one.（本段似乎值得商榷，原文说“The device provides precise measurements of blood flow in the brain, a known indicator of how the brain is working.”，这应该是事实表明原来的是准确的，只是有噪音大的缺点，而一般事实是不能攻击的。不过我也不太肯定，望达人指点）

In the second place, the author assumes that the new device is accurate. The only evidence provided to support this assumption is that the new device measures eye movement and it allows patients to move around. However, it is entirely possible that this device cannot provide precise measurement of eye movement. Even if the new device accurately determines eye movement, perhaps the measurements of eye movement cannot precisely monitor the activity of human brain. In short, the author fails to provide evidence that the new device is accurate in monitoring human brain.

Finally, even if the new device is more accurate than the older one, the argument relies on the assumption that the new device should substitute the older one in all hospitals and institutions. ?这句话很怪，应该不是assumption Yet, the author overlooks other aspects of the two devices. Perhaps the older device is accurate enough to meet the requirement of hospitals and research institutions, though it is not as precise as the new one. Or perhaps the price of new (the new one) is exorbitant for these institutions and hospitals to apply (afford). All these perspectives should be considered before replacing the older device with the older one.

In sum, the argument is untenable as it stands. To support it, the author should provide stronger evidence that the new device is in fact more precise than the older one. To better evaluate the argument, I need to know the prices of the two devices and the accuracy requirement of the hospitals and institution （s）.

第二天帮我拍砖拉

thiohuUID: 193100

thanks a lot