Argument35【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】第一周第一次作业 on luyaoxu

sibslccUID: 2463158

The following appeared in the summary of a study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia.
"Salicylates（水杨酸脂） are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates, for the past several decades food-processing companies have also been adding salicylates to foods as preservatives. This rise in the commercial use of salicylates has been found to correlate with a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in our twenty-year study. Recently, food-processing companies have found that salicylates can also be used as flavor additives（食品香料） for foods. With this new use for salicylates, we can expect a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia."

水杨酸酯和用来治疗头痛的药物--阿司匹林是同一类化合物。尽管很多食品天然富含水杨酸酯，过去几十年中食品加工公司仍然在食品中加入它来作为防腐剂。这种水杨酸酯在商业上的使用被发现与我们为期20年研究的参加者所报告的头痛发病的平均数量下降是相关的。最近，食品加工公司发现水杨酸酯也可以被用作食品香料。根据这种水杨酸酯的新用途，我们可以预期Mentia居民患头痛症的数量将会持续稳步下降。

In this argument, the author claims that the new use of salicylates will continue to decline the number of headaches. To substantiate this claim, the author points out that salicylates belong to the same chemical我觉得还是加上这个限制词比较好 family as aspirin, and provides the evidence that the commercial use of salicylates is to correlate with a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants. The line of reasoning is vulnerable in several aspects.

中间空一行

The threshold presumption is that the rise of commercial use of salicylates has been found to correlate with a steady decline of headaches.这是从那项研究推断而来的，所以第一段可以说这样开头貌似要来攻击“study”这一证据的可信度的但是看看后面，又说到有联系不能推因果，我个人觉得最好这一句可以让步调整一下放在第二段的开头。 But the author shows no rigid and reliable scientific research to prove it, which poses an unwarranted assumption. Through salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, similar structure doesn’t guarantee the same chemical function这个好. The argument here is not convincing.

The author cites a twenty-year study to demonstrate这个词个人觉得表示“证明”的程度有点深 that in the decades when salicylates were added to food as preservatives, the number of headaches reported by people decreases. First, the author fails to exclude the cases that some people having a headache didn’t report to the study.这个假设很好Besides, the author unfairly ignores other factors that may contribute to the ease of headaches改成decline, such as developed medical technology, improved quality of surrounding environment （觉得这个短语应该把environment作为中心词而不是quality ）or more regular living habits. Therefore the conclusion that the food containing salicylates facilitates reduction of headaches is presumptuous.看到两个人用这个词了，是不是这个词有点不妥呀，有待考证。

On a groundless and unwarranted basis as above, the author easily predict in further that with a new use for salicylates, the steady decline of number of headaches in the average citizen in Mentia is expected. Here the sophistication of human body function is simplified. There are many other prime criminals that can damage health and aggravate the headaches, for instance, sudden work stress or abrupt living pace and so on. Without other comparison information, we cann’tcannot get to the conclusion as the author claims. Last not the least, common sense tells us我觉得下一句是一个假设，不能写的这么绝对that things will develop in the opposite direction when they become extreme. So assume the salicylate is beneficial for treatment of headaches, whether it is the more , the better? The author presents no directions or explanations.

All in all, the author commits a false analogy and forecasts a opinionated conclusion on a flawed assumption. In addition, many other important factors that affect human bodies are filtered by the author. So in order to convince others这个others有歧义，前面加个the，变成指代other people more solid proofs need to be provided.

[ 本帖最后由 sibslcc 于 2009-1-13 23:02 编辑 ]