Argument57 [Victors小组]coraone 第十次作业

coraoneUID: 2233021

TOPIC: ARGUMENT57 - 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 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."
WORDS: 679          TIME: 0:51:01          DATE: 2007-6-22

Merely based on unfounded comparison between the treatment results of two groups of ulcer patients, the author draws a conclusion that the Zorba(Z) is highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers and even preventing first-time ulcers. The reasoning of this argument seems superficial plausible at first glance, but it all collapse as soon as you have a comprehensive consideration with it. The author is logically flawed in several critical respects, which render it unpersuasive and groundless.

First and foremost, the study is incredible with lacking of specific statistics number about these ulcer patients, so that it cannot be cited as evidence to bolster the author's assertion. The cardinal number of the patients in each stud y group has not been displayed in the argument, it is entirely possible that the statistics are not adequate enough to make the treatment result comparable. Imaging that only 4 patients in each group, and those who took Z under a doctor's direction had only 1 patients who developed new ulcers, and in contrast, the other group had 3 patients suffered from new ulcers. Dose it make sense of comparing the number of 25 percent and 75 percent? Certainly it is not. Furthermore, if study conducted in such a small groups of people, it cannot apply to represent overall patients' condition. Accordingly, if the author have not thought about such crucial elements carefully and counted the study as necessary evidence, the argument will be unconvincing.

In my next analysis, even if the study can be trust, the author still hasty to assert that it is the Zorba can prevent recurrent ulcers. First, the using of Z as part of treatment is not the only differentiate between these two groups, it doctor's direction is also a crucial factors. What the doctor can do is arranging the patients with the times of taking pills and the quality of pills should be taken each time. This different can make the significant effect on the final treatment result. Second, granted that the doctor's impact can be neglect, the specific situation of the two groups of patient is unwarranted to draw a comparison between them and draw further conclusion. The possibility cannot be excluded that the ulcer patients in the latter group are only suffered from sight ulcer which could be recover easily and would not recurrent new ulcers at most of the time. In contrast, the former group contained most severe ulcer patients with great possibility to get recurrent ulcers. If this is the case the author cannot indicate that the Z has contribution in preventing recurrent ulcers. Third, even if the situation of two groups of patients are the same, the 25 percent of recurrence among patients who took Zorba pills is likely to be an temporary effect and the arguer cannot guarantee that they will not have ulcer in the future. Therefore,  with these three points failed to clean up, the author can hardly make us trust his or her assertion.

In my final analyzing, granted the recurrent ulcers can be prevented by taking Z, the author cannot presume that what result in preventing recurrent ulcers would bring about the same result in preventing first-time ulcers. There are many differences between the ulcer patients and the health people, such as the lacking of certain nutrition materials, make it can not simply make an analogy to the first-time ulcers preventing. And moreover, The possibility also cannot be eliminated that the Z has side effect with human body so that it can not be frequently used for normal people to prevent first-time ulcers. Thus, this conclusion is truly unwarranted after the careful examination mentioned above.

In sum, the arguer's conclusion and recommendation that Zorba pill is effective and thus suggested to the general public is troubling on the basis of some invalid and unreliable evidence. To convince me, the arguer has to show detailed information about the study and conduct further studies to prove that the Zorba pill is effective. Still, the arguer has also to prove this pill can prevent first-time ulcers and are suitable for the public.

hlzhang431UID: 2297648

TOPIC: ARGUMENT57 - 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 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."
WORDS: 679          TIME: 0:51:01          DATE: 2007-6-22

Merely based on unfounded comparison between the treatment results of two groups of ulcer patients, the author draws a conclusion that the Zorba(Z) is highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers and even preventing first-time ulcers. The reasoning of this argument seems superficial plausible at first glance, but it all collapse(错误的动词形式) as soon as you have a comprehensive consideration with it. The author is logically flawed in several critical respects, which render it unpersuasive and groundless.

First and foremost, the study is incredible(表示难以置信的，好像不太恰当) with lacking of specific statistics (去掉number) about these ulcer patients, so that it cannot be cited as evidence to bolster the author's assertion. The cardinal number of the patients in each stud y group has not been displayed in the argument, it is entirely possible that the statistics are not adequate enough to make the treatment result comparable. Imaging that only 4 patients in each group, and those who took Z under a doctor's direction had only 1 patients who developed new ulcers, and in contrast, the other group had 3 patients suffered from new ulcers. Dose it make sense of comparing the number of 25 percent and 75 percent? Certainly it is not. Furthermore, if study conducted in such a small groups of people, it cannot apply to represent overall patients' condition. Accordingly, if the author have not thought about such crucial elements carefully and counted the study as necessary evidence, the argument will be unconvincing.

In my next analysis, even if the study can be trust(时态), the author still hasty(时态) to assert that it is the Zorba can prevent recurrent ulcers. First, the using of Z as part of treatment is not the only differentiate(应该用名词吧) between these two groups, (it doctor's direction 别扭，不知你想说什么) is also a crucial factors. What the doctor can do is arranging the patients with the times of taking pills and the quality of pills should be taken each time. This different can make the significant effect on the final treatment result.(依据你的语气好像不会用什么区别) Second, granted that the doctor's impact can be neglect, the specific situation of the two groups of patient is unwarranted to draw a comparison between them and draw further conclusion. The possibility cannot be excluded that the ulcer patients in the latter group are only suffered from sight ulcer which could be recover easily and would not recurrent new ulcers at most of the time. In contrast, the former group contained most severe ulcer patients with great possibility to get recurrent ulcers. If this is the case the author cannot indicate that the Z has contribution in preventing recurrent ulcers. Third, even if the situation of two groups of patients are the same, the 25 percent of recurrence among patients who took Zorba pills is likely to be an temporary effect and the arguer cannot guarantee that they will not have ulcer in the future. Therefore,  with these three points failed to clean up, the author can hardly make us trust his or her assertion.

In my final analyzing, granted the recurrent ulcers can be prevented by taking Z, the author cannot presume that what result in preventing recurrent ulcers would bring about the same result in preventing first-time ulcers. There are many differences between the ulcer patients and the health people, such as the lacking of certain nutrition materials, make it can not simply make an analogy to the first-time ulcers preventing.(语法有误) And moreover, The possibility also cannot be eliminated that the Z has side effect with human body so that it can not be frequently used for normal people to prevent first-time ulcers. Thus, this conclusion is truly unwarranted after the careful examination mentioned above.

In sum, the arguer's conclusion and recommendation that Zorba pill is effective and thus suggested to the general public is troubling on the basis of some invalid and unreliable evidence. To convince me, the arguer has to show detailed information about the study and conduct further studies to prove that the Zorba pill is effective. Still, the arguer has also to prove this pill can prevent first-time ulcers and are suitable for the public.


请问lz限时间了吗

solartorchUID: 2244205

Merely based on unfounded comparison between the treatment results of two groups of ulcer patients, the author draws a conclusion that the Zorba(Z) is highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers and even preventing first-time ulcers. The reasoning of this argument seems superficial plausible at first glance, but it all collapse 小细节，往往写快了就容易出错 as soon as you have argument里面说理用one has比较好 a comprehensive consideration with it. The author is logically flawed in several critical respects, which render it unpersuasive and groundless.

First and foremost, the study is incredible with lacking of specific statistics number about these ulcer patients, so that it cannot be cited as evidence to bolster the author's assertion. The cardinal number of the patients in each stud y group has not been displayed in the argument, it is entirely possible that the statistics are not adequate enough to make the treatment result comparable. Imaging that only 4 patients in each group, and those who took Z under a doctor's direction had only 1 patients who developed new ulcers, and in contrast, the other group had 3 patients suffered from new ulcers. Dose it make sense of comparing the number of 25 percent and 75 percent? Certainly it is not. (小声的说一句，偶觉得还是挺make sense的。。。) Furthermore, if the study is conducted in such a small groups of people, it cannot be apply applied to represent overall patients' condition. Accordingly, if the author have not thought about such crucial elements carefully and counted the study as necessary evidence, the argument will be unconvincing.

In my next analysis, even if the study can be trust, the author still is hasty to assert that it is the Zorba can prevent recurrent ulcers. First, the using of Z as part of treatment is not the only differentiate differentiation between these two groups, it doctor's direction is also a crucial factors. What the doctor can do is arranging the patients with the times of taking pills and the quality of pills should be taken each time. This different can make the significant effect on the final treatment result. 此处有偏颇，题目中只是说take Zorba under doctor's direction并没有说整体治疗过程，当然题目并没有否定说整体治疗过程就没有区别，所以还是可以写，不过不能让人感觉误解了题目 Second, granted that the doctor's impact can be neglect, the specific situation of the two groups of patient is unwarranted to draw a comparison between them and draw further conclusion. The possibility cannot be excluded that the ulcer patients in the latter group are only suffered from sight ulcer which could be recover easily and would not recurrent 形容词 new ulcers at most of the time. In contrast, the former group contained most severe ulcer patients with great possibility to get recurrent ulcers. If this is the case the author cannot indicate that the Z has contribution in preventing recurrent ulcers. Third, even if the situation of two groups of patients are the same, the 25 percent of recurrence among patients who took Zorba pills is likely to be an temporary effect and the arguer cannot guarantee that they will not have ulcer in the future. Therefore,  with these three points failed to clean up, the author can hardly make us trust his or her assertion.

In my final analyzing, granted the recurrent ulcers can be prevented by taking Z, the author cannot presume that what result in preventing recurrent ulcers would bring about the same result in preventing first-time ulcers. There are many differences between the ulcer patients and the health people, such as the lacking of certain nutrition materials, make it can not simply make an analogy to the first-time ulcers preventing. which make it illegitimate to make an analogy. And moreover, The possibility also cannot be eliminated that the Z has side effect with human body so that it can not be frequently used for normal people to prevent first-time ulcers. Thus, this conclusion is truly unwarranted after the careful examination mentioned above.

In sum, the arguer's conclusion and recommendation that Zorba pill is effective and thus suggested to the general public is troubling on the basis of some invalid and unreliable evidence. To convince me, the arguer has to show detailed information about the study and conduct further studies to prove that the Zorba pill is effective. Still, the arguer has also to prove this pill can prevent first-time ulcers and are suitable for the public.

总的来说，逻辑很清晰，错误找得也很全，但是有很多明显的语法错etc. 写的快了难免，不过可以自己先改改。