my first argument~

godspellUID: 177241

154.The following appeared in the editorial section of a health and fitness magazine.
'In a study of the effects of exercise on longevity, medical researchers tracked 500
middle-aged men over a 20-year period. The subjects represented a variety of occupations
in several different parts of the country and responded to an annual survey in which they
were asked: How often and how strenuously do you exercise? Of those who responded, the men
who reported that they engaged in vigorous outdoor exercise nearly every day lived longer
than the men who reported that they exercised mildly only once or twice a week. Given the
clear link that this study establishes between longevity and exercise, doctors should not
recommend moderate exercise to their patients but should instead encourage vigorous outdoor
exercise on a daily basis.'

Merely based on a survey among 500 middle-aged men of varies kinds of occupations that
indicates longevity has a tight relationship with exercise, the author recommends that
patients should do vigorous outdoor exercise one daily basis rather than moderate exercise.
At first look, the argument appears to somewhat convincing, yet further reflection reveals
that it is based on some unwarranted assumptions.

A threshold problem with the argument involves the group surveyed themselves. The common
sense tells us that middle-aged men have been in a energetic period. However, the object
in the conclusion is patient. The less kinds of people, the less reliable the results to
indicate vigorous outdoor exercise is more justifiable. Moreover, the survey relies on a
enough long time, whether 20 years' time can strengthen author's assertion. Perhaps 500
people are unrepresentative of the overall population--in terms of traits that affect
longevity. Lacking such evidence, the author cannot simply draw any firm conclusions based
on the survey about the relationship between longevity and exercise.

Even assuming that the survey is statistically reliable, the editorial's author might
confusing cause with effect--by assuming that the exercise caused longevity, other than vice
versa. Is it absolutely possible that frequent exercises build up a strong body? Or perhaps
only with a robust constitution, they may have sufficient energy to enjoy the pleasure of
vigorous outdoor exercise. Consider, for example, how can one who has no interest voluntary
do sports--let alone about vigorous outdoor exercise. Another possibility is that even if
he does, whereas, we cannot guarantee that he'll be fine after furious exercise when being
in poor health. One problem with the argument is that it assumes that exercise is the only
significant factors affecting longevity. General knowledge and experience tells us this is
not the case, and that a variety of other factors, such as genes, life styles, also eating
structure. Thus the compound factors might very well turn out to be largely effective.

Furthermore, it is obvious to demonstrate that patients are supposed to do vigorous out
exercise other than moderate sports. As an illustration, every apple has its color. By
the same token, we cannot simply prolong our nature life though doing vigorous exercise,
some may be not acclimatized.

To sum up, the author's argument is not based on sound reasoning. To make it logically
acceptable, the author would have to supply more ways and means to prolong life.
Additionally, the author must provide more compellent evidence of the connection between
exercise and longevity, only with more convincing evidence could this argument become
more than just a investigative ceporting.

godspellUID: 177241

这是我的第一篇argument，欢迎大家批评指正，谢谢~

godspellUID: 177241

最近再上新东方的班，感觉收获挺大的
和看书不同，老师有时候会讲些和考试相关的东西