Argument76 【0906G ANap Hand 作文互改小组】第4次作业 by zju-jenny 请猛拍

jenny11235UID: 2585428

ARGUMENT76 - The following appeared as part of an article in a health and beauty magazine.

"A group of volunteers participated in a study of consumer responses to the new Luxess face cream. Every morning for a month, they washed their faces with mild soap and then applied Luxess. At the end of that month, most volunteers reported a marked improvement in the way their skin looked and felt. Thus it appears that Luxess is truly effective in improving the condition of facial skin."

The article, making an assertion of effectiveness of Luxess for facial skin improvement, is somehow sceptical as it is sound. Especially, we consider other factors excluded in the survey and the logical reasoning of the author.

First of all, as some factors, such as: mild soap used in this survey, facial nursing taken by volunteers, are not discussed, there are many doubts about the advisability of the survey in this case. We have reasons to think the mild soap used washing face is the main factor influencing the result of the survey, in view of the fact that the author didn't supply us any statics to illustrate the influence made by this element and that washing is significant to face care. Even if we assume that mild soap is unrelated to the results, we cannot exclude the influence taken by facial nursing? Common sense tells us that people who usually making facial nursing have better condition of facial skin than those who doesn't. As no information in this article tells us this background, just considering the process of facial washing and then admitting the effectiveness of Luxess isn’t scientific.

Additionally, we notice the volunteers just applied Luxess in the morning. So if consumers use the product before sleeping, can they still have better results of skin? It is entirely possible that Luxess is just helpful to facial skin in the method of using it in the morning and it has no effect in improvement t when consumers apply it in night, or even it has counter effect. In the wake of the special using time, the survey is not as valid as it sounds.

Furthermore, this survey doesn't provide us any details about the volunteers taken part in the study or about the most volunteers who claim their face-skin improvement. If the latter mentioned above is mostly young people whose skin is in a better state than the olds or if the people who don't report the improvement, in contrary, have decline of condition of facial skin, we  then have no sufficient reasons to assert Luxess is “truly ” effective to all common people. As we know, thanks to the ages, young people often have a better adaption than the olds, applying a new facial cream means to them a piece of cake sometimes which is contrarily a great event to the senior citizens. So in view of no details provided, the accommodation made by the author is unadoptive.

In sum, as the whole survey still exists many uncontrollable elements and logical reasoning of the article is questionable, the assertion in the article is unbelievable. Unless the author furbishes the whole survey to give us more information as the above mentioned, we can believe the assertion made by the author. (2009-1-3 23:01:20)

LucipharUID: 2483172

The article, making an assertion ofeffectiveness of Luxess for facial skin improvement, is somehowsceptical as it is sound. Especially, we consider other factorsexcluded in the survey and the logical reasoning of the author.

First of all, as some factors, suchas: mild soap used in this survey, facial nursing taken by volunteers,are not discussed, there are many doubts about the advisability of thesurvey in this case. We have reasons to think the mild soap used(for?)washing face is the main factor influencing the result of the survey,in view of the fact that the author didn't supply us any statics toillustrate the influence made by this element and that washing issignificant to face care. Even if we assume that mild soap is unrelatedto the results, we cannot exclude the influence taken by facialnursing? Common sense tells us that people who usually making facialnursing have better condition of facial skin than those who doesn't(don't). Asno information in this article tells us this background, justconsidering the process of facial washing and then admitting theeffectiveness of Luxess isn’t scientific.

Additionally, we notice thevolunteers just applied Luxess in the morning. So if consumers use theproduct before sleeping, can they still have better results of skin? Itis entirely possible that Luxess is just helpful to facial skin in themethod of using it in the morning and it has no effect in improvement twhen consumers apply it in night, or even it(删掉?) has counter effect. In thewake(ness?) of the special using time, the survey is not as valid as it sounds.

Furthermore, this survey doesn'tprovide us any details about the volunteers taken part in the study orabout the most volunteers who claim their face-skin improvement. If thelatter mentioned above is mostly young people whose skin is in a betterstate than the olds or if the people who don't report the improvement,in contrary, have decline of condition of facial skin, we  then have nosufficient reasons to assert Luxess is “truly ” effective to all commonpeople. As we know, thanks to the ages, young people often have abetter adaption than the olds, applying a new facial cream means tothem a piece of cake sometimes which is contrarily a great event to thesenior citizens. So in view of no details provided, the accommodationmade by the author is unadoptive.(感觉应该用个连词把这两句和前面分开,两个关于志愿者的质疑形成并列关系.)

In sum, as the whole survey stillexists many uncontrollable elements and logical reasoning of thearticle is questionable, the assertion in the article is unbelievable.Unless the author furbishes the whole survey to give us moreinformation as the above mentioned, we can believe the assertion madeby the author. (2009-1-3 23:01:20)

我太弱了.. 看了很久可还是看不出什么很明显的问题啊啊啊....
崩溃了


[ 本帖最后由 Luciphar 于 2009-1-6 00:10 编辑 ]

irvine666UID: 2575525

The article, making an assertion(总觉得make assertion的应该是人，不是article) of effectiveness of Luxess for facial skin improvement, is somehow sceptical(应该是sb is sceptical about sth, spetical这个词带有很强的主观性) as it is sound（sounded?）. Especially, we consider other factors excluded in the survey and the logical reasoning(we consider factors说的通，不过we consider logical reasoning总觉得怪怪的) of the author.

First of all, as some factors, such as: mild soap used in this survey, facial nursing taken by volunteers, are not discussed, there are many doubts about the advisability（我觉得换成reliability比较好） of the survey in this case. We have reasons to think（这里最好用suspect） the mild soap used washing face is the main factor influencing the result of the survey, in view of the fact that(把这3个词抛一边去，强烈的chinglish+凑字数嫌疑,另外你用fact和其衍生词用的太多了，找找有没有替换的？比如说这段话第一句换成as some aspects) the author didn't supply us any statics(statistics) to illustrate the influence made by this element and that washing is significant to face care(and前后的句式不一致啊). Even if we assume that mild soap is unrelated to the results, we cannot exclude the influence taken（take influence,有这种说法么？） by facial nursing?（这个问号怎么来的？） Common sense tells us that people who usually making facial nursing have better condition of facial skin than those who doesn't. As no information in this article tells us this background(这句话有够中国化的...改下吧), just considering the process of facial washing and then admitting the effectiveness of Luxess isn’t scientific.

Additionally, we notice the volunteers just applied Luxess in the morning. So if consumers use the product before sleeping, can they still have better results of skin? It is entirely possible that Luxess is just helpful to facial skin in the method of using it in the morning and（有对比的意思，用while好些） it has no effect in improvement t when consumers apply it in night, or even it has counter effect. In the wake of（没记错的话这个词是追随的意思吧...用在这合适的？） the special using time, the survey is not as valid（这个地方有问题，一个survey,哪怕再简单，也不能说它valid或者not cogent吧，应该是基于这个survey的conclusion有逻辑问题） as it sounds.（这段走到另外一个极端了，没有论证，全部是干巴巴的可能性，这样也不会有说服力的啊，你说调查没有说服力，难道就是两个可能...可能...就打翻了？要举可能，随便一个调查都不是无懈可击，都有无数种可能的，关键是要自圆其说，既然是自说，那就要用自己的语言来论证它们，可能性虽然重要，但是也只是支撑你的论点和论言（主干）的东西，千万不要过分偏重例子和可能性，这个毕竟是argument,不是introduction）

Furthermore, this survey doesn't provide us any details about the volunteers taken part in the study or about the most volunteers who claim their face-skin improvement. If the latter mentioned above is mostly young people whose skin is in a better state than the olds or if the people who don't report the improvement（直接攻击most这个词，倒是很新颖的想法啊）, in contrary, have decline of condition of facial skin, we  then have no sufficient(insufficient) reasons to assert Luxess is “truly ” effective to all common people. As we know, thanks to the ages, young people often have a better adaption than the olds(the old), applying a new facial cream means to them a piece of cake sometimes which is contrarily a great event to the senior citizens. So in view of no details provided, the accommodation made by the author is unadoptive.(adoptive是收养，抚养...  unadoptive...有这么个词么？)

In sum, as the whole survey still exists many uncontrollable elements and logical reasoning of the article is questionable, the assertion in the article is unbelievable. Unless the author furbishes the whole survey to give us more information as the above mentioned, we can believe the assertion made by the author. （结尾没啥好改的，不过说下思路，作者太拘泥于指出不足了，其实结尾可以尝试着提出意见，比如加这么一句： 可能...会更好，当然这个是我个人的意见而已）