Argument54 最后一次练习，给个评价吧！

creativeUID: 2193617

TOPIC: ARGUMENT54 - The following appeared in a newsletter on dental health.

"A recent research study reported the experience of dentists whose patients had, over a period of five years, regularly used Flux Dental Floss as part of their dental hygiene routine. The report indicates that these dentists had 50 percent fewer cases of gum disease than did dentists whose patients did not use Flux regularly. In addition, most of the Flux users who were surveyed by their dentists agreed that Flux's mint flavor would encourage people to floss more often. Thus, even though Flux may cost more than other brands of floss, it is clearly a worthwhile investment for those who want to be assured of healthy teeth and gums."
WORDS: 686          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 9.1.2006

In this argument, the arguer claims that the Flux Dental Floss is helpful to keep  healthy teeth and gums. To support that the arguer cites a report about a dentist whose patients are advised to use Flux, which shows the Flux is actually effective in the health of teeth and gums. And a survey showing the Flux Dental Floss is a better choice than other brands of floss. After due giving a weight to all the assumptions and premises, we find, on closer analysis, that neither are the premises convincing and nor is the conclusion compelling. It is obviously full of gaps and loop holes since it provides fragmentary evidence.

Primarily, the argument depends on a premise that the patients using Flux is the only and true fact serving to the fewer case of gum disease. Yet the arguer confuses the temporal correlation with cause relationship. Every causal relationship implies, admittedly, a correlation, but the correlation does not necessarily imply a causal relationship.
Firstly, no evidence substantiate that the Flux Dental Floss has effect in the keeping health of teeth and gums. It is entirely possible that it is the effective keeping method and heath pills advised by those dentists who are reported in the study what make the patients' health of teeth and gums better than others. Secondly, the arguer overlooks the great possibility that the use of Flux is not the only factor serving to healthy teeth and gums. Other such factors include healthy eat-and-drink behavior, good method to use teeth and gums. For example, the patients who had fewer cases of gum disease might clean their teeth twice every day, while those who had more teeth trouble might clean their teeth once two days. Or perhaps, the former patients eat more low-sugar food than the latter ones. Either scenario, if true, will also cause the result that the former patients' teeth and gums are healthier than the latter ones, which has nothing to do with the Flux.

Furthermore, even if the report of the study is reliable, the arguer assumes further that which were effective on the healthy teeth and gums in the past five years also be effective in the future bases on the unsubstantiated assumption that during the past five years all conditions upon which their effectiveness depend have remain unchanged. Perhaps, the quality of Flux became worse so significantly in the past five years that their products have no effect nowadays. Or perhaps, the virus which makes the teeth and gums unhealthy changed in the past five years and the effective element loses their effect now. All in all, without accounting and ruling out the possibilities, the arguer cannot persuade us that the Flux is also the best choice today even in the future.

Finally, the survey cited in the argument is unreliable for the following reason. The survey shows the Flux user would floss their teeth more often that others, but the arguer simply reasons from that to the Flux users would have healthier teeth and gums. In fact, it need not be the case. There is no causal relation established between the high frequency and the high quality. That is to say flossing more times might not indicate flossing better. Consequently, the survey cited as evidence is unreliable indeed.

In addition, the arguer overlooks the possibility that the price of Flux is too high for normal consumer to offer it. After all, one should consider not only the effect before he bought a product, also the price.

To sum up, the argument is result of a great deal of speculation in which the arguer comfortably assumed a considerable amount of data. To assess the strength of the argument we need more information about the demographic profiles of the survey. Moreover, had the arguer taken the following discussed factors into view, it would render the argument irrefutable. (1) The fewer case of gum disease really result from the use of Flux without any other reason. (2) The situation in the past fie years will remain unchanged in the future. (3) The price of Flux is acceptable for its effect.

[ 本帖最后由 creative 于 2006-9-2 21:09 编辑 ]

creativeUID: 2193617

upupup

creativeUID: 2193617

thanx

steveDavisUID: 2809708

高手啊