Argument35【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】第一周第二次作业 thanks zeyiwang

susannerUID: 2209224

【题目】
Argument35 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。
【原提纲】
1.      论断的前提不一定成立。S不一定能治头痛。同一个化学家庭，结构相似但功能不一定相似。调查也无法证明：几十年用防腐剂，而头痛开始下降是否只是最近20年的事，并且应该分析被调查者的饮食，并且排除其他可能性：他们是因为其他更有效的药物或治疗方法。…
2.      就算S真影响头痛，作者基于这样未被证实的假设：Mentia的居民在将来一定会吃含S作为食品香料的食物。(这一点我没有想到，不错)
人们使用健康食品的趋势增加，含有防腐剂和香料的食品未必消费量大。
3.      况且不是所有头疼都能用这种药物成分解决。所以头疼数量未必会下降。
4.      可能会有其他因素导致头疼上升，比如工作压力增大，环境质量变差等等，抵消了S的作用，人口增加导致总数量增加。作者没有排除影响头痛的其他因素。
(可以攻击的点还不少，比如对于一种食物添加剂，是否存在副作用(side effect)是应该考虑的，而且是否每人都能试用它，也许大人吃了头痛减轻了，万一小孩吃了智力降低了呢？材料中的那个study也可以拿来攻击一下，还有虽然食物加工公司发现S也用作食物香料，但可能他们因为成本原因等，在实际生产中并不会大量使用

【自改后提纲】
1.      论断的前提不一定成立。S不一定能治头痛。同一个化学家庭，结构相似但功能不一定相似。调查也无法证明：几十年用防腐剂，而头痛开始下降是否只是最近20年的事，并且应该分析被调查者的饮食，并且排除其他可能性：他们是因为其他更有效的药物或治疗方法。…
2.      就算S真影响头痛，作者基于这样未被证实的假设，它会作为食品添加剂用。没有证据表明这个假设，可能成本会很高
3.   即使他们大量使用，居民未必会吃包括S的食物。对于一种食物添加剂，是否存在副作用(side effect)是应该考虑的。人们使用健康食品的趋势增加，含有防腐剂和香料的食品未必消费量大。即使没有副作用，S的风味不一定符合当地人的习惯。
3.      可能会有其他因素导致头疼上升，比如工作压力增大，环境质量变差等等，抵消了S的作用，人口增加导致总数量增加。作者没有排除影响头痛的其他因素。

【正文】
The author concludes that the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia will decline because of salicylates，which are members of the same chemical family as aspirin. To support the conclusion, the author also cites a study which shows a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants.The author also points out a new use as flavor additives for salicylates. I find the argument logically unconvincing in several respects.(开头段比我写得好，我要多学习学习～～～)

first of all, a threshold problem with the argument involves the voluntary nature of the study. (抱歉，又没有看懂，threshold和voluntary有点疑问，我的理解是开始的问题涉及到研究的自愿性，不知道对不对，望指教)（自改为the validity of the study）The author fails to provide evidence about the number or percentage of participants. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that those numbers are insignificant, in which case the study is unlikely to have any effect on getting the conclusion.(很好，简洁有力)

secondly, the conclusion based on an unsubstantiated assumption that salicylates can cure headache（headaches）.Yet the argument contains no reliable evidence to support this assumption. The author points out  salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, yet common knowlege tells us, even they have quite similar structures, they can be quite different in functions. The study the author cites do not necessarily indicate that there is cause-and-effect relationship between salicylates and decline of the number of headaches. Perhaps, the participants are taking other medicines during these twenty years, or perhaps the decline is due to the improvement of the enviroment of the communities. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for the decline the author cannot convince me that the decline of the number of headaches is due to salicyates.
Thirdly，even if salicyates do have effect on curing headaches, the conclusion rests on another assumption that salicylates will certainly be used as flavor additives. The author fails to take into account that the cost of salicylates as flavor additives might be high enough to hinder the wide use, thus the author cannot convince me that there will be a decline in the number of headaches among citizens.(这一段是我听了建议单独加的)

Fourthly, even if there will be a new use of salicyates as flavor additives,it is little indication that Mentia residents are tend to eat the food （foods）which contains（containing更简洁） this flavor additives. Perhaps, the local residents will not like the flavor of salicyates. Or perhaps(应该可以去掉) they tend to buy some natural and more health-related food rather than foods with flavor additives.  In either case, it accomplishes little toward supporting the argument's conclusion.

Finally, the author fails to take other factors which might causing headaches into account,（用这个好像更地道the author ignores other possible factors that may also lead to /contribute to headaches.）such as increasing working pressures, decreasing qualities of environments, increasing population of local residents and other factors which might actually offset(好词啊) the effects of salicyates.Without ruling out these factors, the conclusion  that there will be a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia is dubious at best.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the argument must show--perhaps by way of a reliable study--that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between S and decline of the number of headaches.To better assess the argument, the author also need to conduct a research of the cost of S as flavor additives, and about local eating habit and other factors might affect the health of citizens.

ps：你的文章结构清晰，各个漏洞点都找得很不错，语言简练了一些，是偶学习的对象啊。
我有个小疑问，就是你文中多次提到The study the author cites do not necessarily indicate that there is cause-and-effect relationship between salicylates and decline of the number of headaches.
对于这种比较常见的犯因果关系错的题目，有没有必要一定要提出来“两者之间没有cause-and-effect relationship”，我注意到5篇ets的官范，虽然都存在像因果关系错，草率推广这样的错误，但是在文中都没有直接提出说commit a false casual relationship between A and B 或者it is a flow of hasty generalization.对于这种在逻辑思维中稍微有点专业的名词，大家相互讨论的时候没有什么问题，但是是否一定要在自己的文章中写出来呢？

在没有这些稍显专业的词汇的情况下，能把文章写好，那应该是一种更高的层次吧～～～再接再厉～～

回复zeyiwang：谢谢你的评改，这种说法cause-and-effect relationship是我从北美范文上学得。我以后会听取建议，换成be attributable to 等说法。谢谢。

[ 本帖最后由 susanner 于 2009-1-15 19:21 编辑 ]