argument154

唯美笑痴UID: 2275335

154.The following appeared in the editorial section of a health and
fitness magazine.

"In a study of the effects of exercise on longevity, medical researchers
tracked 500 middle-aged men over a 20-year period. The subjects
represented a variety of occupations in several different parts of the
country and responded to an annual survey in which they were asked: How
often and how strenuously do you exercise? Of those who responded, the men
who reported that they engaged in vigorous outdoor exercise nearly every
day lived longer than the men who reported that they exercised mildly only
once or twice a week. Given the clear link that this study establishes
between longevity and exercise, doctors should not recommend moderate
exercise to their patients but should instead encourage vigorous outdoor
exercise on a daily basis."

1.调查有问题.首先,调查对象有问题,人与人之间有差异,能每天都参加激烈的户外运动的人可能身体素质physical condition比那些每周仅仅温和地锻炼一两次的人要好.从而导致调查不可靠.即使我们忽略人余人之间的差异,每年1次问卷,太少了.因为人不是机器,不是一成不变的.很可能,因为天气原因,有的人夏天运动的多,而冬天运动的少.从而导致调查不可靠.即使我们再假设人们的确每年按一定的规律锻炼,调查方法有问题. 有两个因素做比较A运动频率B运动强度,但是每次比较只能对比一个因素,否则不清楚是哪个因素起作用,调查不可靠. 应该这样做两组对比:A,每天温和运动的人和每周温和锻炼一两次的人对比寿命B,每天激烈运动的人和每天温和运动的人对比寿命, 得出最佳结果. MOREOVER,应该用最佳结果和普通不运动的人对比寿命,检验运动是否导致长寿.此外,我们不知道做对比的人群,是否拥有相近的运动年龄. 如果不是,则调查不可靠.
2.即使我们接受调查的结果,作者假设患者的身体状况和调查中的500名中年男子一样,而且患者都是男性. 荒谬!!! 不能忽略性别差异gender diversity.



This argument is well presented, however, contains several facets that are problematic. First, the whole survey is open to question. In addition, an unreasonable assumption is employed by the author. I will discuss each of them in turn.

Before evaluating the evidence of the survey, one must first consider do the respondents have the same condition? Obviously, it is probably not the case. Individual diversity must exist. It is entirely possible that the men who engaged in vigorous outdoor exercise nearly every day have a better physical condition than the men exercised mildly only once or twice a week. This would explain why the men who did vigorous outdoor exercise nearly everyday lived longer that the men who exercised mildly only once or twice a week. Therefore, the longer lives they have have nothing to do with more vigorous exercise but the better body condition. Even if we ignore the individual diversity, once a year for the survey might be not enough. Men is not machines, either computers, cannot be invariable and have invariable exercise plans. For example, people always do more exercise in summer than they do in winter. If it is the case, the men who were asked cannot give precise answers, therefore rendering the survey an unreliable one. Given that, the 500 men have invariable exercise plans, and do exercise as their plans, the way, how the survey was conducted, is mistaken. There are two factors to be considered: exercise frequency (F) and exercise intensity (I). In this argument, author employed a comparison between the men who have high F, high I and the men who have low F, low I. If the former lived longer that the latter, we cannot judge which factor makes contribution to the result and which factor is negative or positive. In this sight, it is entirely possible that the men who have high F and low I lived longer than the men who have high F and high I. Moreover, we do not be informed that whether the men in two groups of the comparison have close exercise age. If it is not the case, the man who exercised ten years at high level F, I and the man who exercise ten days also at high level F, I may give the same answer to the survey’s question. And in this case, the two men’s effects of the exercise to longevity will not be close. Thus, the “clear” link that this study establishes between longevity and exercise is not clear, and the survey remains unreliable.

Even if we accept the survey’s result, the argument remains problematic. The author assumes that all the patients have the same physical condition as the 500 men and are male. It is ridiculous to judge that doctors should not recommend moderate exercise to their patients but should instead encourage vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis according to the result of the 500-men survey. Because it might be a lot of female patients, how can they be suggested according to such a men survey? For simple example, most women cannot do exercise at a high I as most men do. Obviously, the author neglects the gender diversity between men and women.

In conclusion, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. In order to support it, the author should consider the gender diversity-increasing 500 women respondents and make two comparisons: A. between the people who have high F, low I and the people who have high F, high I, B. between the people who have high F, high I and the people who have low F and high I and make the conclusion a convincing one.

[ 本帖最后由 唯美笑痴 于 2007-7-29 20:24 编辑 ]

werecatUID: 2289296

This argument is well presented, however, contains several facets[facts] that are problematic. First, the whole survey is open to question. In addition, an unreasonable assumption is employed by the author. I will discuss each of them in turn.[够直接。。。不过根据最新经验，似乎开头段无论写成怎样都可以，所以也没有好坏之分吧]

Before evaluating the evidence of the survey, one must first consider[：] do the respondents have the same condition[可以说具体点backgrounds, ages,…..]? Obviously, it is probably not the case. Individual diversity must exist. It is entirely possible that the men who engaged in vigorous outdoor exercise nearly every day have a better physical condition than the men exercised mildly only once or twice a week. This would explain why the men who did vigorous outdoor exercise nearly everyday lived longer that the men who exercised mildly only once or twice a week. Therefore, the longer lives they have have nothing to do with more vigorous exercise but the better body condition. Even if we ignore the individual diversity, once a year[the frequency of once a year] for the survey might be not enough. Men is not machines, either[nor] computers, cannot be invariable and have invariable exercise plans. For example, people always do more exercise in summer than they do in winter. If it is the case, the men who were asked cannot give precise answers, therefore rendering the survey an unreliable one. Given that, the 500 men have invariable exercise plans, and do exercise as their plans, the way, how the survey was conducted, is mistaken. There are two factors to be considered: exercise frequency (F) and exercise intensity (I). In this argument, author employed a comparison between the men who have high F, high I and the men who have low F, low I. If the former lived longer that the latter, we cannot judge which factor makes contribution to the result and which factor is negative or positive. In this sight, it is entirely possible that the men who have high F and low I lived longer than the men who have high F and high I.[这个分析很牛比] Moreover, we do not be informed[are not informed] that whether the men in two groups of the comparison have close exercise age. If it is not the case, the man who exercised ten years at high level F, I and the man who exercise ten days also at high level F, I may give the same answer to the survey’s question. And in this case, the two men’s effects of the exercise to longevity will not be close. Thus, the “clear” link that this study establishes between longevity and exercise is not clear, and the survey remains unreliable.[可以考虑分下段，而且这个攻击似乎太多了，其他几点照顾得太少]

Even if we accept the survey’s result, the argument remains problematic. The author assumes that all the patients have the same physical condition as the 500 men and are male. It is ridiculous to judge that doctors should not recommend moderate exercise to their patients but should instead encourage vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis according to the result of the 500-men survey. Because it might be a lot of female patients, how can they be suggested according to such a men survey? For simple example, most women cannot do exercise at a high I[at high intensity] as most men do. Obviously, the author neglects the gender diversity between men and women.

In conclusion, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. In order to support it, the author should consider the gender diversity-increasing 500 women respondents and make two comparisons: A. between the people who have high F, low I and the people who have high F, high I, B. between the people who have high F, high I and the people who have low F and high I and make the conclusion a convincing one.

[总体上来说，第二段太长了，应该注意下各段间的平衡吧
与其在一个攻击点堆好多例子，不如平均分配吧]

唯美笑痴UID: 2275335

第2段.我打算分开写...
而且...攻击点是什么啊????我觉得哪里问题多,哪里就多批啊
又不一定要对argument的每句话都平均下来,各批一段
您说呢?