Argument166 [飞跃dreams小组]第三次作业

纳兰馨儿UID: 2437109

Argument166-The following appeared in a local newspaper.
"People should not be misled by the advertising competition between Coldex and Cold-Away, both popular over-the-counter cold medications that anyone can purchase without a doctor's prescription. Each brand is accusing the other of causing some well-known, unwanted side effect: Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure and Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness. But the choice should be clear for most health-conscious people: Cold-Away has been on the market for much longer and is used by more hospitals than is Coldex. Clearly, Cold-Away is more effective."

①使用医院多不说明使用量大。效果好.(急于概括)
②在市场上时间长不说明效果好，只能说明上市时间早。
③可以选择别的公司的药
草率结论+非此即彼/(二选一，忽略其他同类)非此即彼

In this memo , the arguer suggest to choose Cold-Away in stead of Coldex as the old medication for its better effect. The support evidences include the comparison of the quantity in hospital , the time when they were put on market and the different side effects with the two kinds of medicine . Yet, close scrutiny on the evidence reveals that it lends little credible support to this conclusion.

The author commit a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if Cold-Away is used by more hospitals, it does not follow that it must be more helpful. Because in the hospital the determinations are always made by the doctor, whose recommendation may be influenced by some commercial factors. other than the customer. Thus, the choice of hospitals is not a good model for the customers himself, who should take more respects into consideration. Given that the amount of the medicine is more marketable than another one in the hospital , there is no evidence about sales in the pharmacy, where most of the over-the-counter medicines are chosen by general customers. Without more convincing evidence about real reason why hospital choose Cold-Away instead of Coldex, only hospital’s choice can not guarantee its superiority.

Another point that I cannot agree with the speaker is that to assert Cole-Away is superior to Coldex because of the former one has been on market for much longer. We could only admit this statement only when we judge things all by the time it appears. It means that old house will be more solid, aged trees can be used more widely, and so forth. It is highly possible that Coldex is just an improvement of Cold-Away in recent years. Given that the long time existence can demonstrate certain commitment of Cold-Away, there is no evidence about the result of the comparison between them. Therefore, without further evidence, the reason is unwarranted.

Finally, The author’s recommendation rests on the unlikely assumption that the patients has only two alternatives in purchasing cold medications. In all likelihood  the choice can engage one of many other medicines instead. Thus, to some extent the author recommend is unwarranted.

To sum up, though the argument seems to be sound, in fact, it is neither reasonalbe nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out such key issues on other kinds of medicines, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what arguer claims. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.




[ 本帖最后由 纳兰馨儿 于 2008-2-4 16:09 编辑 ]

lyokaUID: 2451632

Argument166-The following appeared in a local newspaper.

"People should not be misled by the advertising competition between Coldex and Cold-Away, both popular over-the-counter cold medications that anyone can purchase without a doctor's prescription. Each brand is accusing the other of causing some well-known, unwanted side effect: Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure and Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness. But the choice should be clear for most health-conscious people: Cold-Away has been on the market for much longer and is used by more hospitals than is Coldex. Clearly, Cold-Away is more effective."

①使用医院多不说明使用量大。效果好.(急于概括)
②在市场上时间长不说明效果好，只能说明上市时间早。
③可以选择别的公司的药
草率结论+非此即彼/(二选一，忽略其他同类)非此即彼

In this memo, the arguer suggests to choose Cold-Away instead of Coldex as the old medication for its better effect. (as, for引导的分别是什么成分？) The support evidences include the comparison of the quantity in hospital, the time when they were put on market and the different side effects with the two kinds of medicine. Yet, close scrutiny on the evidence reveals that it lends little credible support to this conclusion.
              

The author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if Cold-Away is used by more hospitals, it does not follow that it must be more helpful. Because in the hospital the determinations are always made by the doctor, whose recommendation may be influenced by some commercial factors other than the benefit of the customer. Thus, the choice of hospitals is not a good model for the customers himself, (himself指代谁？如果指作者语法上说不通，而指choice也说不通;后面的who也有类似毛病) who should take more respects into consideration. Given that the amount of the medicine is more marketable than another one in the hospital, there is no evidence about sales in the pharmacy, where most of the over-the-counter medicines are chosen by general customers. Without more convincing evidence about real reason why hospitals choose Cold-Away instead of Coldex, only hospital’s choice can not guarantee its superiority.
              质疑用得多说明疗效好。几个层次安排的不错，有让步联系很紧凑

Another point that I cannot agree with the speaker is that to assert Cole-Away is superior to Coldex because of the former one has been on market for much longer. We could only admit this statement only when we judge things all by the time it appears. It means that old house will be more solid, aged trees （树老能用aged形容么？）can be used more widely, and so forth. It is highly possible that Coldex is just an improvement of Cold-Away in recent years. Given that the long time existence can demonstrate certain commitment of Cold-Away, there is no evidence about the result of the comparison between them. Therefore, without further evidence, the reason is unwarranted.
              质疑时间长说明疗效好。感觉没有很有力的说明，例子不是很有说服力。

Finally, the author’s recommendation rests on the unlikely assumption that the patients have only two alternatives in purchasing cold medications. In all likelihood the choice can engage one of many other medicines instead. Thus, to some extent the author recommend is unwarranted.
              这段感觉有跑题嫌疑：题目是比较两个药的效果而非说明市场上药的选择。

To sum up, though the argument seems to be sound, in fact, it is neither reasonable nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out such key issues on other kinds of medicines, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what arguer claims. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.
              最后总结，可以将各个漏洞再简要叙述一下。

              文章前两个漏洞找的很到位，第三个有跑题嫌疑。还有可以论述一下广告上只谈了副作用但没有说哪个后果更严重，也许high blood pressure几率非常小。第一个漏洞论述比较到位，尤其是让步的衔接很精彩；第二个有些欠缺。还有文章中关键词药的效果没有很好的体现出来。文章用词变化很多。