argument34 熊熊互拍组 -- yurong84,互拍中！

yurong84UID: 2120087

Argument34
------题目------
Milk and dairy products are rich in vitamin D and calcium, substances essential for building and maintaining bones. Many people therefore believe that a diet rich in dairy products can help prevent osteoporosis, a disease in which the bones weaken significantly with age and that is linked to both environmental and genetic factors. But a long-term study of a large number of people has found that those who have consistently consumed dairy products throughout the years of the study have a higher rate of bone fractures than any other participants in the study. Since bone fractures are a symptom of osteoporosis, this study result shows that a diet rich in dairy products may actually increase, rather than decrease, the risk of osteoporosis.
--------------------
牛奶和奶制品富含维生素D和钙，这是骨骼生长和维持所必须的物质。因此很多人相信多吃奶制品的饮食可以帮助预防骨质疏松症，这是一种骨骼随年龄而显著弱化而且与环境和基因因素相关联的疾病。但是一项对大量人群的长期研究发现那些在研究期间经常食用奶制品的人骨折发病率比其他参加研究的人要高。由于骨折是骨质疏松症的症状之一，这一研究结果表明富含奶制品的饮食实际上会增加而不是减少患骨质疏松症的危险。

------------------
syllabus:
1. the reliability of the study------------select?  equal healthy condition? age?
2. the relationship between fracture and osteoporosis----------are all the fractures
                                                                                  due to osteoporosis?
3. the effect of the dairy produsts-------------other reasons? promote or impede?
------正文------

In this argument, the author wants to convince us of the negative effect of a diet rich in dairy products on the disease of osteoporosis rather than the beneficial function as most people believe. In support of his opinion, the arguer provides us with a long-term study which shows that people who have consistently consumed dairy products have a higher rate of bone fractures than the other participants. The conclusion seems to be reliable; however I find it actually suffers from many fallacies in each reasoning step.

To begin with, the arguer's assertion that milk and dairy products have negative influences is established upon the study, which investigates the different rates between who consume these products more frequently with the others. But the exacting content of this study is not offered, nor the other relative details. First, the arguer doesn’t tell us any information about the participants, such as whether they join in this study though randomly or selectively choosing, or if their healthy conditions are at an equal lever before the study? As the arguer informs us, osteoporosis is relative with age as well as both environmental and genetic factors. Perhaps the participators contain people of different age whose rates of fracture are naturally different, thus cannot be put together. Without clearly divide the symptoms between different participators, the prior assumption is not tenable and the conclusion of the study will be overturned.

Secondly, the arguer owes the happening of fracture to the disease of osteoporosis, which is also a assertion open to doubt. It's true that osteoporosis may lead to a high rate of fracture, but that doesn't mean all the fractures result from such disease. It's highly possible that many other events, like traffic accident, exercises injury as well as other sickness, may also contribute to this case. In short, the arguer draws the conclusion so hurry that he or she fails to scrutinize the conditions thoroughly, which makes his argument inconvincible.

What's more, even if these fractures do result from osteoporosis, how can the arguer simply attribute the cause to dairy products? On the one hand, those who consume dairy products through the year may eat less at a time than the rest, thus the total amount they take in maybe even fewer, and it's also possible that they eat more because they already suffer from osteoporosis, trying to alleviate their illness though this way. Besides, we can’t assume that ingestion dairy products make the illness more severe unless we know the former condition of these participators.

To sum up, the arguer make up his assertion based on a study lack of statistics thus unreliable, at the same time, the reasoning though which he or she draws the conclusion is also unsound. To convince us of this conclusion, the arguer should not only provide more information but also improve the inner logic structure of his reasoning.

neo_athrunUID: 2111270

占个座开始拍~

yurong84UID: 2120087

姐夫真好阿！

期待ing~~~~~~
and
回拍中~~~~~~

neo_athrunUID: 2111270

syllabus:
1. the reliability of the study------------select?  equal healthy condition? age?
2. the relationship between fracture and osteoporosis----------are all the fractures
                                                                                  due to osteoporosis?
3. the effect of the dairy produsts-------------other reasons? promote or impede?
------正文------

In this argument, the author wants to convince us of the negative effect of a diet rich in dairy products on the disease of osteoporosis rather than the beneficial function as most people believe.这个句子写的好啊！ In support of his opinion, the arguer provides us with a long-term study which shows that people who have consistently consumed dairy products have a higher rate of bone fractures than the other participants. The conclusion seems to be reliable加上个at first glance 能好一些 ; however I find it actually suffers from many fallacies in each reasoning step.

To begin with, the arguer's assertion that milk and dairy products have negative influences is established upon the study, which investigates the different rates between who consume these products more frequently withand 吧？ the others. But the exacting表示什么意思？:p content of this study is not offered, nor the other relative details. First, the arguer doesn’t tell us any information about the participants, such as whether they join in this study though这个词？？好像多余了吧？他们是否随即还是有选择的参加 跟though无关吧？ randomly or selectively choosing, or if their healthy conditions are at an equal lever before the study? As the arguer informs us, osteoporosis is relative with age as well as both environmental and genetic factors. Perhaps the participators contain people of different age whose rates of fracture are naturally different, thus cannot be put together. Without clearly divide动词？ the symptoms between different participators, the prior assumption is not tenable and the conclusion of the study will be overturned.

Secondly, the arguer owes the happening of fracture to the disease of osteoporosis, which is also a assertion open to doubt. It's true that osteoporosis may lead to a high rate of fracture, but that doesn't mean all the fractures result from such disease. It's highly possible that many other events, like traffic accident, exercises injury as well as other sickness, may also contribute to this case. In short, the arguer draws the conclusion so hurry that he or she fails to scrutinize the conditions thoroughly, which makes his argument inconvincible.这一段的逻辑似乎有问题，作者说食用奶制品易骨折而骨折是疏松的症状，所以食用奶制品易导致疏松。但这一段首说的是作者把骨折的原因归结为疏松，因果倒置了啊，骨折是症状作为了原因，而你的意思是疏松是原因，感觉上是有点混乱了

What's more, even if these fractures do result from osteoporosis,这里还是上面说的问题 how can the arguer simply attribute the cause to dairy products? On the one hand, those who consume dairy products through the year may eat less at a time than the rest, thus the total amount they take in maybe even fewer, and it's also possible that they eat more because they already suffer from osteoporosis, trying to alleviate their illness through this way. Besides, we can’t assume that ingestion dairy products make the illness more severe unless we know the former condition of these participators.似乎还是在说study的代表性的问题（不过我也是这么写的:(）

To sum up, the arguer make up his assertion based on a study lack of statistics不光缺数据吧？ 随机性呢 thus unreliable, at the same time, the reasoning through which he or she draws the conclusion is also unsound. To convince us of this conclusion, the arguer should not only provide more information but also improve the inner logic structure of his reasoning.
嗯，通篇的语言蛮流畅嘛词句都挺丰富，我就不一一表扬了:p。至于第二段的问题不知道能否说服你，反正我看着觉得有点怪。其他的都是细节了呵呵