argument200 勇往直前小组

zhangjing106UID：2157010

In this argument, the arguer advises that dentists who wish to attract patients should focus on the male consumer about their anesthetic techniques and the sensitivity of their staff. To support his opinion the arguer provides statistics collected from dentists to be evidence. At first glance the arguer's suggestion looks like rational. However, there are several flaws in his logic.

Firstly, statistics given by the arguer might be not correct at all, or could be causes by some other probabilities. The arguer does not mention the total number of male and female dental patients included in the statistics. It is possibly that the total number of male dental patients is five times more than female patients. If it is true, statistics that three times more men than women faint could not prove that man are more likely to be distressed than women are, because actually more women faint than men. Moreover, I can cite many other possibilities about this evidence, even if statistics really reflect the fact. Perhaps men are able to abide dental hurt more than women unless sickness is too serious, which induce that men who faint while visiting the dentist get worst dental sickness than women. With worst sickness, it is also reasonable that more men faint than women.

Secondly, the suggestion that dentists should target the male consumers might be not effective to attract more patients. We have discussed before that there might be fewer women go to hospitals for dental hurt. It is probable that there are more potential female dental patients than male. Furthermore, fewer women faint does not mean that women are unafraid of dental treatments. Perhaps women also need dentists to comfort them because they also would be distressed about having dental work done. If dentists only focus on male patients ignoring female, they will lose more women in the future.

Thirdly, the effect of emphasizing both the effectiveness of dentists' anesthetic techniques and the sensitivity of their staff to nervous or suffering patients might be not useful as the arguer proposes. No evidence proves that patients will not be distressed if dentists have advanced anesthetic techniques. Some patients are so sensitive that they will faint if they look at dentists' tools such as aces and forceps. And no evidence proves that distress is caused by hurt during dental treatments. Some patients will still faint because of dread other than suffering. Moreover, the sensitivity is not standard to evaluate professional ability of dentists. A sensitive dentist may not be an excellent doctor at all. The introduction of such aspects is not likely to attract more patients.

In summary, the arguer should provide more evidences to make his suggestion more persuasive. For example, he could offer detailed data compared men with women collected from dentists. Or he could give more survey results to prove that people faint while visiting the dentist mainly because of dentists' anesthetic techniques and the sensitivity of dentists' staff.

10．
1、没证据证明牛奶的供应量明显增加了。奶牛农庄的数量上涨不证明牛奶的供应量必然上升。
2、没证据证明农场主获得了更多的利润。可能成本更高，机器维护，工人工资，奶牛饲料等都可能导致更高的成本。可能产量下降了，收入降低了。
3、限价能够保证较低的牛奶价格，但是不能保证充足的供应。价格上涨也可能是供不应求的标志。无利可图，农场主可能会选择改行，减少了牛奶供应。

36.
1、没证据证明岛屿上生活的儿童是由双亲抚养而不是由整个村庄的人抚养。
2、没证据证明以观察为中心的研究方法无效。可能20年来风俗已变。
3、没证据证明以采访为中心的研究方法是正确的。可能采访中引导儿童多谈论父母，可能儿童和父母接触较多，但是实际上还是整个村庄的人共同抚养。

235．
1、听众数量减少和老年人数量增加没必然联系。老年人也可能习惯摇滚乐。听众数量减少可能是有其他原因，而不是因为摇滚乐不受欢迎，如电视媒体，其他电台的竞争。
2、recorded music的销量下降不能证明摇滚乐不受欢迎。有可能近来上市的新专辑是古典乐或者民族音乐而非摇滚乐。一旦有摇滚乐上市，销量就会上升。
3、邻近城市的新闻节目成功不代表KNOW的新闻节目也会成功。没证据证明两市具有可比性。大选前的调查也不能证明居民对政治报道的感兴趣的程度超过了摇滚音乐。

239．
1、没证据证明W城青少年犯罪主要发生在晚上。宵禁时候的青少年犯罪率下降可能非宵禁时候的犯罪率上升了。
2、W市政广场的犯罪率下降了可能有其他的原因，而非宵禁。也可能是犯罪没有被发现而不是没有。也可能其他地方的犯罪率上升了。
3、D城的情况不明，是否有必要实行宵禁政策，可能本来的法律制度就很好，犯罪率就很低。没证据证明宵禁是控制青少年犯罪和保护未成年人的有效手段。

linshaoUID：2338229

In this argument, the arguer advises that dentists who wish to attract patients should focus on the male consumer about their anesthetic techniques and the sensitivity of their staff. To support his opinion the arguer provides statistics collected from dentists to be evidence. At first glance the arguer's suggestion looks like rational. However, there are several flaws in his logic.

Firstly, statistics given by the arguer might be not correct at all, or could be causes by some other probabilities. The arguer does not mention the total number of male and female dental patients included in the statistics. It is possibly that the total number of male dental patients is five times more than female patients. If it is true, statistics that three times more men than women faint could not prove that man are more likely to be distressed than women, because actually more women faint than men. Moreover, I can cite many other possibilities about this evidence, even if statistics really reflect the fact. Perhaps men are able to abide dental hurt more than women unless sickness is too serious, which induce that men who faint while visiting the dentist get worst dental sickness than women. With worst sickness, it is also reasonable that more men faint than women. 这段论述很充分，反例很全面。
Secondly, the suggestion that dentists should target the male consumers might be not effective to attract more patients. We have discussed before that there might be fewer women go to hospitals for dental hurt. It is probable that there are more potential female dental patients than male. Furthermore, fewer women faint does not mean that women are unafraid of dental treatments. Perhaps women also need dentists to comfort them because they also would be distressed about having dental work done. If dentists only focus on male patients ignoring female, they will lose more women in the future.

Thirdly, the effect of emphasizing both the effectiveness of dentists' anesthetic techniques and the sensitivity of their staff to nervous or suffering patients might be not useful as the arguer proposes. No evidence proves that patients will not be distressed if dentists have advanced anesthetic techniques. Some patients are so sensitive that they will faint if they look at dentists' tools such as aces and forceps. And no evidence proves that distress is caused by hurt during dental treatments. Some patients will still faint because of dread other than suffering. Moreover, the sensitivity is not standard to evaluate professional ability of dentists. A sensitive dentist may not be an excellent doctor at all. The introduction of such aspects is not likely to attract more patients.

In summary, the arguer should provide more evidences to make his suggestion more persuasive. For example, he could offer detailed data compared men with women collected from dentists. Or he could give more survey results to prove that people faint while visiting the dentist mainly because of dentists' anesthetic techniques and the sensitivity of dentists' staff.
全文论述充分，几个关键错误都找到了，反例找得很好，分析全面。
你的A已经写得很好了。

xiongnashiongUID：2359406

和linshao的意见有一点不一样，虽然你找到了所有的错误，但是我个人觉得你的逻辑思路是不清晰的，我的观点如下。
我觉得这个文章的逻辑走向是按照如下的一个顺序的。
1.男人更容易distressed（数量的问题，这时你的第三段和第二段批驳的是同一个点应该放在一起）
2.强调 sensitiveness和麻醉可以有效缓解他们的这种忧虑（这个问题没有说）
3.针对男性的问题的广告可以吸引病人（这是你的第三点）
所以作者得到结论，我们应该针对男性的distressed问题，来做广告吸引病人，广告中强调二点就可以了
所以
我们的批驳应该按照这个 思路来走
1.2.3点之间的关系是这样的
只有1.成立 2.才有意义，依次类推
在文中 你的批驳点把第二点和第三点批驳顺序弄反了，所以我觉得你的思路可能还没有很清晰。
这也是我这样写我的ARGU的原因，我在开头段就确立了我的整个文章的逻辑结构，所以依次批下来。
所以你每次说我逻辑不清晰的时候我是很奇怪的。当然 正如你所说，我的确是在表达方面太过不清晰，这点我会慢慢改正，
也希望今天的评论对你有所帮助 ：）

nornsUID：2325187

静jj这篇的2，3段确实有点点问题哦

Statistics collected from dentists indicate that three times more men than women faint while visiting the dentist（这是证据，第一层）. This evidence suggests that men are more likely to be distressed about having dental work done than women are（这是证据得到的推论，第二层）. Thus, （这是由推论得到的结论，第三层）dentists who advertise to attract patients should target the male consumer and emphasize both the effectiveness of their anesthetic techniques and the sensitivity of their staff to nervous or suffering patients.

xiongnashiongUID：2359406

to norns
看到你的推论的层次我也很有启发，也有一些小的疑惑。
我对你的逻辑的推论的理解是如下的一个顺序
1.事实
2.从事实到分推论
3.从分推论到总结论
我来考虑作者的思路的时候 是从作者的结论出发，拆分成分论点，再寻找对应的事实。
1.结论
2.分论点
3.事实
恩 我明白了 我觉得你这样的思维顺寻会更加的节省时间，我下篇也会尝试下。
我之所以会采用逆序思考是因为往往结论是我们已知的，所以采用把结论放在第一位的逆向推理，当然 我觉得这样的办法有时候也比较的麻烦 今天看了你的思路 我似乎觉得有一种新的可能，恩谢谢你的启发