argument5

zyczuccgreUID: 2427194

TOPIC: ARGUMENT5 - The following appeared in the business section of a newspaper.

"Given that the number of people in our country with some form of arthritis is expected to rise from 40 million to 60 million over the next twenty years, pharmaceutical companies that produce drugs for the treatment of arthritis should be very profitable. Many analysts believe that in ten years Becton Pharmaceuticals, which makes Xenon, the best-selling drug treatment for arthritis, will be the most profitable pharmaceutical company. But the patent on Xenon expires in three years, and other companies will then be able to produce a cheaper version of the drug. Thus, it is more likely that in ten years the most profitable pharmaceutical company will be Perkins Pharmaceuticals, maker of a new drug called Xylan, which clinical studies show is preferred over Xenon by seven out of ten patients suffering from the most extreme cases of arthritis."
WORDS: 422        TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-1-21 18:57:49

In the argument, the arguer concludes that the most profitable pharmaceutical company will be Perkins Pharmaceuticals (PP) rather than Becton Pharmaceuticals (BP). To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that the patent on Xenon, the best-selling drug produced by BP, would expires in three years, and other companies will be able to produce a cheaper version of the drug. In addition, the arguer reasons that PP produces a new drug called Xylan, which clinical studies show is preferred over by seven out of ten patients suffering from the most extreme cases of arthritis. A careful examination of the argument would reveals how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, based on the fact that the patent on Xenon will expire in three years, the arguer concludes that the BP's profits would be decrease. Yet the arguer provides no evidence to support the claim. It is entirely possible that BP would produce another new drug which is more effective than Xenon to attract patients with some form of arthritis. Or perhaps, the people prefer to buy Xenon produced by BP due to a good reputation among the patients. Without ruling out all other possible explanations, the arguer cannot conclude that the profits of BP would decrease.

Secondly, the argument’s recommendation bases on the poor assumption that the new drug produced by PP called Xylan will bring great benefits for the company. Lacking evidence to the contrary it is entirely possible that the drug is so expensive that patients have no ability to buy the drug. If so, this fact would seriously weaken the claim that PP will be the most profitable company.

Thirdly, the statistically reliability of the study's result is questionable. The number of participants, 10, might constitute an insufficient small sample to draw any reliable conclusions about the effectiveness of the new drug called Xylan. The larger this group compared to the sample of 10 participants, the less reliable of the study's result. Moreover, the sample might be unrepresentative of the overall patients who suffer from arthritis. The study lacks sufficient information about the gender, the age, and the career of the participants.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong support what the arguer maintains. To support the conclusion, the arguer would have to provide more information about the strategies of BP in the ten years. To better evaluate the argument, I need detailed information about the study to determine what conclusion can be drawn based upon the study.

辛苦楼主了

bryanshawUID: 2239455

In the argument, the arguer concludes that the most profitable pharmaceutical company will be Perkins Pharmaceuticals (PP) rather than Becton Pharmaceuticals (BP). To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that the patent on Xenon, the best-selling drug produced by BP, would expires in three years, and other companies will be able to produce a cheaper version of the drug. In addition, the arguer reasons that PP produces a new drug called Xylan, which clinical studies show is preferred over by seven out of ten patients suffering from the most extreme cases of arthritis. A careful examination of the argument would reveals how groundless the conclusion is. 经典北美范文开头模板，太长，现在不流行啦，可以去精华区看看开头的论述

First of all, based on the fact that the patent on Xenon will expire in three years, the arguer concludes that the BP's profits would be decrease. Yet the arguer provides no evidence to support the claim. It is entirely possible that BP would produce another new drug which is more effective than Xenon to attract patients with some form of arthritis. Or perhaps, the people who prefer to buy Xenon produced by BP due to a good reputation among the patients. Without ruling out all other possible explanations, the arguer cannot conclude that the profits of BP would decrease.

Secondly, the argument’s recommendation bases on the poor assumption that the new drug produced by PP called Xylan will bring great benefits for the company. Lacking evidence to the contrary it is entirely possible that the drug is so expensive that patients have no ability to buy the drug. If so, this fact would seriously weaken the claim that PP will be the most profitable company. 这说的也太简短了吧，仅仅药价问题需要考虑么？再说说其他因素会充实些

Thirdly, the statistically reliability of the study's result is questionable. The number of participants, 10, might constitute an insufficient small sample to draw any reliable conclusions about the effectiveness of the new drug called Xylan. The larger this group compared to the sample of 10 participants, the less reliable of the study's result. Moreover, the sample might be unrepresentative of the overall patients who suffer from arthritis. The study lacks sufficient information about the gender, the age, and the career of the participants. 攻击数据放在最后我觉得不好，放第二段好了，显的主次不明的样子。

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong support what the arguer maintains. To support the conclusion, the arguer would have to provide more information about the strategies of BP in the ten years. To better evaluate the argument, I need detailed information about the study to determine what conclusion can be drawn based upon the study. 结尾没的说，模板

你文章典型的一路模板到尾，几乎每个错误点的攻击套路都很有章法，中规中矩，但是就算开头结尾占了那么大的段落，中间部分依然显得十分干枯，寥寥数语，不足以argue。。。。。。。 另外这篇文章的逻辑错误找的也不全面，或者说论述的不好，尤其第二段，不知道扩展。

文章很不错的其实，就是要注意内容的充实，谢谢你拍我的
^_^

iq28UID: 2152875

TOPIC: ARGUMENT5 - The following appeared in the business section of a newspaper.
"Given that the number of people in our country with some form of arthritis is expected to rise from 40 million to 60 million over the next twenty years, pharmaceutical companies that produce drugs for the treatment of arthritis should be very profitable. Many analysts believe that in ten years Becton Pharmaceuticals, which makes Xenon, the best-selling drug treatment for arthritis, will be the most profitable pharmaceutical company. But the patent on Xenon expires in three years, and other companies will then be able to produce a cheaper version of the drug. Thus, it is more likely that in ten years the most profitable pharmaceutical company will be Perkins Pharmaceuticals, maker of a new drug called Xylan, which clinical studies show is preferred over Xenon by seven out of ten patients suffering from the most extreme cases of arthritis."
WORDS: 422        TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-1-21 18:57:49

In the argument, the arguer concludes that the most profitable pharmaceutical company will be Perkins Pharmaceuticals (PP) rather than Becton Pharmaceuticals (BP). To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that the patent on Xenon, the best-selling drug produced by BP, would expires in three years, and other companies will be able to produce a cheaper version of the drug. In addition, the arguer reasons that PP produces a new drug called Xylan, which clinical studies show is preferred over by seven out of ten patients suffering from the most extreme cases of arthritis. A careful examination of the argument would reveals how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, based on the fact that the patent on Xenon will expire in three years, the arguer concludes that the BP's profits would be decrease. （原文中哪里有这句话）Yet the arguer provides no evidence to support the claim. It is entirely possible that BP would produce another new drug which is more effective than Xenon to attract patients with some form of arthritis. Or perhaps, the people prefer to buy Xenon produced by BP due to a good reputation among the patients. Without ruling out all other possible explanations, the arguer cannot conclude that the profits of BP would decrease.（针对了没有在材料中出现的内容作出批驳，举的反例还也都是没有太好针对性的，浓重的模板味道，此段完败。）

Secondly, the argument’s recommendation bases （一般用于被动情况）on the poor assumption that the new drug produced by PP called Xylan will bring great benefits for the company. Lacking evidence to the contrary it is entirely possible that the drug is so expensive that patients have no ability to buy the drug. If so, this fact would seriously weaken the claim that PP will be the most profitable company.（完全没有分析性说理。事实上原材料中还是举了一些事实来推证的，哪里叫lacking evidence？例证也就一句话，太单薄了。）

Thirdly, the statistically reliability of the study's result is questionable. The number of participants, 10, might constitute an insufficient small sample to draw any reliable conclusions about the effectiveness of the new drug called Xylan. The larger this group compared to the sample of 10 participants, the less reliable of the study's result. Moreover, the sample might be unrepresentative of the overall patients who suffer from arthritis. The study lacks sufficient information about the gender, the age, and the career of the participants. （https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=620337&highlight=%2Blastangel）

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong support what the arguer maintains. To support the conclusion, the arguer would have to provide more information about the strategies of BP in the ten years. To better evaluate the argument, I need detailed information about the study to determine what conclusion can be drawn based upon the study.


比较典型的刚刚入门的argument。来看看楼主文章篇幅的构成：
红色为模板，或者是将原文中的话基本没有太大改动套入模板的内容；蓝色为楼主自己所写的内容。可以看到这个文章属于楼主自己写出的内容实在有限。
这些蓝色的内容中，基本都是在一些反例，完全没有任何说理性的辩驳，而且反例本身找的是否精确可以为自己赚取印象分，也得打上大大的问好。再加上攻击点选择，攻击顺序的安排等问题，（这些都没法说了，因为你都没有把文章很好地展开）楼主的这个argument恐怕和高分的差距还是比较大的。
不要总是按照传统观念认为issue难argument简单，事实上是issue入门难但是提高快，argument很容易凑出来一篇但是高分还是非常有难度的。
楼主可以先多多研读ets的官方范文以及评语，而不是所谓的别的非官方资料，包括北美范文。
加油！

In the argument, the arguer concludes that the most profitable pharmaceutical company will be Perkins Pharmaceuticals (PP) rather than Becton Pharmaceuticals (BP). To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that the patent on Xenon, the best-selling drug produced by BP, would expires in three years, and other companies will be able to produce a cheaper version of the drug. In addition, the arguer reasons that PP produces a new drug called Xylan, which clinical studies show is preferred over by seven out of ten patients suffering from the most extreme cases of arthritis. A careful examination of the argument would reveals how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, based on the fact that the patent on Xenon will expire in three years, the arguer concludes that the BP's profits would be decrease. Yet the arguer provides no evidence to support the claim. It is entirely possible that BP would produce another new drug which is more effective than Xenon to attract patients with some form of arthritis. Or perhaps, the people prefer to buy Xenon produced by BP due to a good reputation among the patients. Without ruling out all other possible explanations, the arguer cannot conclude that the profits of BP would decrease.

Secondly, the argument’s recommendation bases on the poor assumption that the new drug produced by PP called Xylan will bring great benefits for the company. Lacking evidence to the contrary it is entirely possible that the drug is so expensive that patients have no ability to buy the drug. If so, this fact would seriously weaken the claim that PP will be the most profitable company.

Thirdly, the statistically reliability of the study's result is questionable. The number of participants, 10, might constitute an insufficient small sample to draw any reliable conclusions about the effectiveness of the new drug called Xylan. The larger this group compared to the sample of 10 participants, the less reliable of the study's result. Moreover, the sample might be unrepresentative of the overall patients who suffer from arthritis. The study lacks sufficient information about the gender, the age, and the career of the participants.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong support what the arguer maintains. To support the conclusion, the arguer would have to provide more information about the strategies of BP in the ten years. To better evaluate the argument, I need detailed information about the study to determine what conclusion can be drawn based upon the study.