argument57 组织了语言,请大侠帮忙看看

寻梦UID: 171591

57The 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.'

正文

The author of this argument recommends that we should inform the general public the efficacy of the Zorba (Z) in order to keep the first-time ulcers preventing the ulcers. To bolster this statement, the arguer cites several evidences to substantial his conclusion, however, carefully inspection of every of them, reveals that none of them can make the assertion reliable.

To begin with, as the evidence referred in the text that the Z is just designed as a simple dietary supplement without any testimony to prove its function, it can be entirely possible that the Z has only few operation in preventing the ulcers. Even assuming that it had the function as expressed in the text, the arguer has no ability to eliminate the assumption that the Z only has the effect with the patients who has the ulcers for the first time, for that matter, it can be doubted about the author’s statement.

Secondly, the author cites some statistics in the argument to approve his conclusion, but it can be ignored for the arguer cannot supply any particular information to prove that this would be authoritative or the swatch cannot be large enough to testify this result. What is more, the author can not furnish more particular info about the characteristic of this group of patients. As referred in the argument, the Z will have an effective function with the patient who has this disease for the first time, there is no evidence can be found in the argument to approve that all the patients taking the Z are according with this precondition. Even though all the possibilities could be excluded, there may be the other factors that can counteract the author’s statement just like it is the other medicine which given by the doctors with the Z at the same time works. Without ruling out these factors, the assumption cannot be reliable.

Furthermore, there is a logical flaw and a false contrast in the evidence which the study shows 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. In this analysis, the arguer provide no communication with the other 75 percent patients who also takes the Z, maybe the fact is that without the direction of the doctor’s, their recurrence rate is 100 percent. And also there is no casual relationship between the two aspect referred in the text unless the arguer could afford much clearer statistics.

Another analysis with flawy logic is that the Z mentioned in this argument can only prevent the recurrent ulcers; it is a dilemma for the author indicates at the beginning of the text that the Z has a effect with the first-time ulcers patients. Even assuming this parlance can come into existence, there is no necessary account for the late indication that many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well.

In sum, this argument makes too hasty assertion based on several unreliable assumptions that cannot make people convince. In order to bolster this argument, the author should provide more particular info about a detailed record with all the first-time ulcers patients taken the Z under the doctor’s direction. I also need to know if the Z will have any other disadvantageous function for the human’s body and most of people can afford its price.

katie-leeUID: 178135

我有两个问题
1写了很长 但是真的限时了吗
2很多没用的话

猫猫624UID: 171232

首先可能要先向你道歉,希望不是我悟道你.
可以看出你对语言是下了大功夫,值得鼓励.但是有点过.长句太多,而且有些组织的不好..
写argument和写issue不同,逻辑比内容重要,只要指出错误稍加论证就可以了.
再着句子可能是该长的时候就长,改短的时候要短.这点我也没有做到,但是正确的.
中午你说我堆词,现在该我报仇了.呵呵
切记不要用issue写法来写argument