Argument57 [Victors小组]第十次作业 by H-Kevin

H-KevinUID: 2182070

The following appeared in a newsletter on nutrition and health.
'Although the multimineral Zorba pill was designed as a simple dietary supplement, a study of first-time ulcer patients who look Zorba suggests that Zorba actually helps prevent ulcers. The study showed that only 25 percent of those ulcer patients who took Zorba under a doctor's direction developed new ulcers, compared to a 75 percent recurrence rate among ulcer patients who did not take Zorba. Clearly, then, Zorba will be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers and if health experts inform the general public of this fact, many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well."

提纲：

1．没有说一共调查了多少人，所以样本可能太少，不可信
2．复发的病人可能是没有按照医生的遵照按时吃治疗溃疡的药，或者其他原因
3．没有任何直接证据说明zorba和避免溃疡的复发有关
4．而且调查的人群没有说明都是first-time ulcers(没有写，不知道应该写在什么地方)

TIME: 45    NUMBER: 529

This author argues that recurrent ulcers can be prevented highly effectively by utilizing Zorba pill. To support this argument the author cites that only 25 percent of ulcer patients who took Zorba under a doctor's direction developed new ulcers, compared to a 75 percent recurrence rate among ulcer patients who did not take Zorba . The argument suffers from three critical flaws and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the argument does not give the accurate number of patients who involved in this survey. 25 percent is not a number can be used directly without telling the cardinal sum. Perhaps only 100 patients in one hospital response to this survey, in the pharmacy testing, this statistics is no useful at all. We know that the effect of one pharmacy should be tested in several years will thousands peoples before ensure it. The data that author mentioned is suspect.

In further support of theargument, the author cites the fact that only 25 percent of those ulcer patients who took Zorba developed new ulcers. But this fact alone lends no support to the argument, because it is possible, for instance, that 75% of those patients who did not developed new ulcer when this survey finished would develop the new ulcer in next few years. If the 75 percent recurrence rate among ulcer patients who did not take Zorba has the also only 25 percent of recurrence rate in the first three years, in which these 25 percent of those ulcer patients who took Zorba developed new ulcers, and other 50% happened in next few years. This comparison will be no meaning. The author must eliminate these possibilities in order to rely justifiably on this evidence for his or her argument.

The article's reliance on that only 25 percent of those ulcer patients who took Zorba developed new ulcers is also problematic in another two respects. First, author did not give any evidence that those patients only took the Zorba and same ulcer medicine which the contrast team used, indeed, those persons who took Zorba might also took another new effective ulcer medicine or the physical therapy, such as acupuncture. Secondly, the author has not give the direct link between Zorba and ulcer, only sentence that they took Zorba under a doctor's direction is not effective support. The reason is like that we also took meal under mother's direction, however we cannot infer from this that meal will be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers if these children have the ulcer and only 25 percent of ulcer children developed new ulcers. So taking Zorba under a doctor's direction is not a suitable evidence.

In conclusion, the letter's author fails to adequately support the argument that Zorba will be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers. To strengthen the argument, the author must sufficient number of peoples who involved in this study of first-time ulcer patients. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about whether those patients only took same ulcer medicine comparing to the contrast team and Zorba. Finally, to better assess the argument we would need to know the direct relation between Zorba and ulcer.