Argument57 [Victors小组]第十次作业

乳虎UID: 2251211

57The 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 took 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作者把相关关系混淆为因果关系。
      2Zorba能防止ulcers复发不能说明他能预防ulcers，专家的推荐也不一定能引起患者的注意。
In this argument, the arguer quotes a study showing that the recurrence rate of the patients who took Zorba under a doctor's direction is 25 percent, while the recurrence rate among ulcer patients who did not take Zorba is up to 75 percent. On that basis, the arguer claim that Zorba can prevent ulcers effectively, furthermore, he or she asserts that if health experts inform the general public of this fact, many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well. Close scrutiny reveals that the conclusion is unsubstantial.


In the first place, assuming the sample of the study is representative to the population, the arguer further assumes that Zorba is responsible to the comparatively low recurrence rate among the patients in experiment group. Evidently, many factors can influence the recurrence rate of Zorba, such as the psychic, physical excise and so on. Maybe the patients in experiment group do exercise regularly but the patients in control do not, in that case, it is the regular exercise rather than Zorba that lowered the recurrence of the patients in the experiment group. Without eliminating this  possibility, the arguer can not rely on the national survey to conclude that Zorba is highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers.

Last but not the least, even if Zorba is highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers, it is still hasty to assert that as long as health experts inform the general public of this fact, many first-time ulcer can be prevented as well. On the one hand the fact that Zorba can prevent Zorba from recurring can not make sure that it can prevent first-time Zorba. It is possible that after suffering from Zorba, the body of patients excretes a kind of material which combines with Zorba to prevent Zorba but in the body of individuals who have not suffered from Zorba there is no similar substance. On the other hand, in this information-explosion society where numerous advertisements including all kinds of advertisements of medicine become a nightmare to everyone, almost every new medicine is informed to be effective. For that matter, even the recommendation from health experts can hardly attract attention, especially considering that Zorba serves as a simple dietary supplement, so the patients will consider the recommendation of health expert as just a joke.

To sum up, the argument commits a series of logical flaws which make it not tenable. In order to consolidate it, the arguer must provide the information abou the procedures for random sample of the study. In addition, the arguer should describe the procedures of the study to inform that other condition of the patients in the experiment group and the control group is all same. To access the conclusion better, we must know whether the recommendation of health expert can persuade patients effectively.

[ 本帖最后由 乳虎 于 2007-6-24 13:19 编辑 ]

菲子UID: 2311527

In this argument, the arguer quotes a study showing that the recurrence rate of the patients who took Zorba under a doctor's direction is 25 percent, while the recurrence rate among ulcer patients who did not take Zorba is up to 75 percent. On that basis, the arguer claim that Zorba can prevent ulcers effectively, furthermore, he or she asserts that if health experts inform the general public of this fact, many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well. Close scrutiny reveals that the conclusion is unsubstantial.（开头太详细了，概括比完全复述来得好吧。）

In the first place, a persuasive study should be statistically reliable, unfortunately, we can not find any information about the sample size and the procedures for random sample, so we doubt whether the sample is representative for the population.（句子太长，而且一已经是多个完整句子了） Maybe the sample size is too little, for example, there are only 8 patients participate the experiment group and the control group, in that case, due to the too little sample size, the sample is not representative to the population.（还是和上一句同样的问题。明明是几个完整的句子，不一定非用逗号捆在一起） Besides, the participants of the study may not be chosen randomly. Commonsense inform that the for every individual can not be same. Different constitution, different life habit etc will influence the recurrence rate of patients. It is possible that the constitution of the patients in experiment group is better than those in control group. Either sincenario, if true, will render the study make no sense as the evidence of the conclusion.

In the second place, assuming the sample of the study is representative to the population, the arguer further assumes that Zorba is responsible to the comparatively low recurrence rate among the patients in experiment group. Evidently, many factors can influence the recurrence rate of Zorba, such as the psychic, physical excise and so on. Maybe the patients in experiment group do exercise regularly but the patients in control do not, in that case, it is the regular exercise rather than Zorba that lowered the recurrence of the patients in the experiment group. Without eliminating  this  possibility, the arguer can not rely on the national survey(?) to conclude that Zorba is highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers. 其实你这段说的还是那个研究不可信，但是不知道为什么扯到national survey 了，是不是记错题了？ 既然前两段都是讲研究结果不可信，就没有必要一开头来一个让步了吧？

Last but not the least, even if Zorba is highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers, it is still hasty to assert that as long as health experts inform the general public of this fact, many first-time ulcer can be prevented as well. On the one hand the one hand the fact that Zorba can prevent Zorba from recurring can not make sure that it can prevent first-time Zorba. It is possible that after suffering from Zorba, in the body of patients created a kind of material which acts with Zorba to prevent Zorba but in the body of individuals who have , 这里是不是缺了？ 不过个人感觉这句话很有力，只是可能粘贴的时候少粘了？ In this information-explosion society, numerous advertisements including all kinds of advertisements of medicine become a nightmare. Almost every new medicine is informed to be effective. For that matter, even the recommendation from health experts can hardly attract attention, especially considering that Zorba serves as a simple dietary supplement, so the patients will consider the recommendation  of health expert as just a joke. 可能还是因为缺了一些句子，这里感觉很突兀，突然就从Zorba的药效跳跃到广告。个人感觉最后加一句收尾的话比较好

To sum up, the argument commit a series of logical flaws which make it not tenable. In order to consolidate it, the arguer must provide the information about the sample size and the procedures for random sample of the study. In addition, the arguer should discribe the procedures of the study to inform that other condition of the patients in the experiment group and the control group is all same. To access the conclusion better, we must know whether the recommendation of health expert can persuade patients effectively.