argument 76 好久之前的同主题... 超时8min

Chloroplast923UID: 207486

76The following appeared as part of an article in a health and beauty magazine.

"A group of volunteers participated in a study of consumer responses to the new Luxess face cream. Every morning for a month, they washed their faces with mild soap and then applied Luxess. At the end of that month, most volunteers reported a marked improvement in the way their skin looked and felt. Thus it appears that Luxess is truly effective in improving the condition of facial skin."

提纲:
1.首段
2.质疑这个study的可信度
3.指出志愿者皮肤改善可能主要由于使用中性肥皂
4.作者还应指出用量,频率,以及说明志愿者有没有同时使用其他护肤品
5.总结

正文:  398words

    In the part of article stated above, the aurger draws a conclusion that the new Luxess face cream(L) is truly effective in improving the condition of facial skin by citing a study on a qroup of volunteers. At a glance, this conclusion seems reasonable, but after careful thinking, we can find several flaws in the deducing of it.
   
    Firstly, the conclusion made by the aurger is based on a study which is doubious to us. In this part article, the aurger does not mention all the details about this study. We do not know who conduct this study. Is it conducted by professional inquiry companies, whose report has higher credibility, or by some individuals, whose report is less reliable? And we do not know the number of the volunteers. Is it large enough to cover a considerable sample? We also have no idea about how this sample is constituded . Is it only according to a specific group of people, or it is for common people? Without pointing out these influencing factors, the aurger can not convince us to believe his verdict, whose ground is this unconvincing study.

    Secondly, even if this study is reliable, we are still doubt of the conclusion, because in this study, the volunteers take care of their skin only by L, but also by mild soap. In this  case, without data of a comparing experiment, in which the volunteers wash their faces with sweet water and then apply L, we can not verdict that the improvement of the volunteers participated in this study is total attributed to L. The mild soap may possibly improve the condition of facial skin more than L.

    Finally, there are many other factors this part of article do not mention, such as the frequency for volunteers to wash their faces with mild soap and apply L, and the using amount of Leach time. Additionally, whether the volunteers apply some other face creams at the same time influences the result of this study greatly. Only when all this possibilities are ruling out, can the aurger convince us.

    To sum up, this part of the article in a health and beauty magazine tried to tell us that L is truly effective in improving the condition of facial skin, but the envidence it shows is so brief thus not convincing. To make us believe, the aurger should apply more details of the study.

monkeydryUID: 183691

问个问题,argument是不是一般都应该用第三人称?

Chloroplast923UID: 207486

好像有用第一人称的