argument200 牙医和病人 同主题欢迎互拍 信誉保证 BOW

dicmiUID: 183392

恩。用数据说，就更加明确了

谢谢哈

只爱小不点UID: 2189745

呵呵，我就是想表达风华说的意思～～还有，谢谢楼主的指点：）

fftomatoUID: 2206553

请问考试时强人真不加头尾么？还有 我有听说Argu中心句的说法，可是一直不懂怎样算？强人指点
A threshold problem with this argument is that the statistics of study cited by the author is open to doubt. We are not informed how these statistics derived, and thus cannot take the statistics as granted. First, the author only compares how many times men or women faint respectively, without inferring the total number of them. Possibly, there are more men visiting the dentist than women, maybe ten times or so; but according to statistics, there 【are】 only three times more men than women faint. Obviously, it only proves that the women are more inclined to faint, which goes in sharp contrast to the author's conclusion. Secondly, the author fails to provide the sampling process and the number of respondents, which also render【renders】the statistics unreliable. It is possible that only a few, like less than five dentists, involved in this study. Also, it is equally possible that the dentists told a wrong number of people faint to the researchers in order to cover their incompetence as dentists. According to both two points, if true, study cannot reflect the overall situation. Hence, from these two aspects, unless the author could give further information about the study, the statistics of the study is unpersuasive.
【我的顺序完全是倒个头，先攻结论，因为我觉得root先说比较有力，当然survey先说是层层推进，强人以为？】

Moreover, even granted that the statistics is valid, the author provides poor evidence to establish the cause-effect relationship between faint and distress. Common sense informs us that faint has a close connection with individual situations and the process during treatment. In that case, lacking the information about men's physical situation, age range, occupation, it is presumptuous to draw such a conclusion. Chance is that, majority of men who go visiting dentists are old men and have more severe disease than the women, and thus they are more likely to faint. Meanwhile, another chance is that there are other contributors 【rather than distress加这里】 leading to men's faint【( rather than distress放在前面不会有歧义)】, like the medicine used during treatment. Therefore, if the author cannot rule out those possible reasons mentioned above, he/she cannot convince us that the men faint is due to their distresses.

Additionally, providing the causal relation is substantiated, the advertise strategy advised by the author is problematic somehow. For one thing, it is unfairly to only focus on the male patients while neglect the female patients. Because we are not told about the gender composition of consumers, we have reasons to doubt that perhaps most of consumers are women, whereas only a little【small】 fraction is men. If it is true, targeting the male consumer may disappoint female patients and drive them to other dentists. For another, only stressing the anesthetic techniques and the sensitivity of staff is unwarranted by this argument. To this point, no evidence is cited to prove that men only care about those two aspects. Rather, their choice of dentists may depend on other factors, say clinic's facilities, dentists' general techniques, or the price they have to pay. In short, a lot of contributors could influence patients' choice and the two factors cited by the author are only part of them. As a consequence, failing to account for so many other relevant factors, we cannot take the strategy too seriously.
主要还是学习为主，请强人指点，非常感谢！
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=512154&extra=