Argument168 【0906G 同主题第一期】

goingeastUID: 2439824

1 对作者说的 两种药都吃 提出疑问
2 三年间 除吃药外的其他因素 提出疑问

This argument is not well-reasoned. The suspect study offered some points we need do more research and consideration. Initially, we should differentiate the multireason cause bone fractures, because of lacking of bone mass is one thing that can reduce through taking medicine and hurt by outside force is another thing that medicine plays a little to prevent. The arguer says that we need take both vitamin D and calcium daily with double the recommended dose. One point is why should people take Vitamin D as well as calcium？ Even though they have correlation, it is highly possible that either vitamin D or calcium is sufficient to reduce the risk. Otherwise, the double recommended dose may be overabundance, which is an abuse that does not have a good effect and even make a burden to the old to absorb them.

In addition, the three years study contains some questionable facts. This group of old women are nursing-home residents as arguer says, these may be the major factors why the group of women own a much lower rate of hip fractures than those who are not nursing-home residents. Again , the arguer do not show us whether that group of the old women take other medicine during the three-year, perhaps other medicine are more important to reduce the rate. Furthermore, the healthy diet habit as well as enough sleep should be considered. In particular, those women participated in a light weightlifting program. That is to say they took exercise regularly, there is a possibility that exercise reinforce their bone and keeps them healthy, thus the rate of bone fracture must be lower than people who do not.

liyue24UID: 2350787

This argument is not well-reasoned. The suspect study offered some points we need do more research and consideration. Initially, we should differentiate the multireason cause bone fractures, because of lacking of bone mass is one thing that can reduce through taking medicine[;] and hurt by outside force is another thing that medicine plays a little to prevent. The arguer says that we need take both vitamin D and calcium daily with double the recommended dose. One point is why should people take Vitamin D as well as calcium？[额……这个不能这样说吧～见下<1>] Even though they have correlation, it is highly possible that either vitamin D or calcium is sufficient to reduce the risk.[我个人觉得哈，这根本不是highly possible的问题，根本V D和钙与减少受伤可能性咪有任何关系嘛～^^该果断的时候就果断，不怕，呵呵～] Otherwise, the double recommended dose may be overabundance, which is an abuse that does not have a good effect and even make a burden to the old to absorb them.

In addition, the three years study contains some questionable facts. This group of old women are nursing-home residents as arguer says[said?], these may be the major factors why the group of women own a much lower rate of hip fractures than those who are not nursing-home residents. Again , the arguer do not show us whether that[这里用that有点chinglish吧？我觉得就用this挺好。对应前面，都是this，表示特指。] group of the[去掉，后面复数，不用the] old women take[took?] other medicine during the three-year[three years?], perhaps other medicine are more important to reduce the rate.[ ....这种无支持理由的随意perhaps好吗？] Furthermore, the healthy diet habit as well as enough sleep should be considered. In particular, those women participated in a light weightlifting program. That is to say they took exercise regularly, there is a possibility that exercise reinforce their bone and keeps them healthy, thus the rate of bone fracture must be lower than people who do not.

两段写的还挺好，语言上问题不大，意思表达清，偶有一些细节问题，以后写的时候自己注意，相信很快就能克服了。

先说<1>
one point is why should people take Vitamin D as well as calcium?  
这个句子主句是个陈述句呀，结尾不能问号的。如果真想问号，不妨这样写：
one key point is: why should people take Vitamin D as well as calcimu? 使用冒号应该就可以了吧～

这里想说的是，标点也要留意，不要乱用哈～～



下面说最主要的思路问题。

我觉得第一段写的挺好，真的是仿照5分的那个范文，区分关键概念。造成骨折的原因有很多，骨质疏松是一个，受伤也是一个。这是一个大范围和小范围的问题，也是偷换概念。就像ETS那个里面，护具和预警起到作用不同，效果也就不同。第一段这里的处理就很好。但是，why should people take Vitamin D as well as calcium这句是不是有点思路跑偏？^^ 此外就是最后，有些地方就要体现自己的果断：不用太多possibility，直接说no relationship我看也不是不可以。（当然，这就要看常识了。就像那个护具和预警的区别一样，如果觉得有可能解释不清，就自己在文中说一下，来个define.就像这篇的6分范文一样，给出定义护具有啥效果，预警的衣服有啥效果。)

第二段我觉得就写的有点散了。
先看5分范文，还是说了一个问题：受伤的原因。其实lz的第二段也是说的这个意思，但是topic sentence就明显不如5分范文有劲儿～人家直接点明这段的主题，但是lz这里似乎就有些含糊了。而且，针对具体内容来说，信息量也不如5分范文丰富。看到这里我是觉得lz写到这里似乎有点力不从心，或是思路开始发散了～能凝聚到一点，专注的说，看来确实是大家需要提高之处。
此外，看到很多板油都习惯罗列他因而没有详细的分析。我们看看5分范文：从likewise开始，正反两个方面都说了，这是不是体现分析问题的全面性呢？是不是体现看问题够深入呢？是不是我们可以效仿的呢？ :)


此外有一点想提醒的是：看ETS的范文我们会发现，5分和6分都说了区分概念，以及关于受伤的原因。而且都是把区分概念放在首位。而且同样是这种一个survey的argument，人家根本就不谈什么调查是否科学啊，是否有说服力啊，等等等等这些无意义的话，而是完全集中精力在具体内容上来。这是不是像我们原来考语文或是政治，答题要找“点儿”～有了关键点儿，就有分数，找不对点儿，分数就很难上去了。
所以由此可见，分析题目，具体问题具体分析不空泛，这个是很关键的。



最后我们看人家评分的是怎么说的。 特别注意这句：The writer develops each of these questions by considering possible answers that would either strengthen or weaken the argument. 不光说了如何weaken，也说了如何strengthen。而且有一个clear organization（也就是两段清晰的谈两点，每段内容不发散），所以虽然不如6分全面完善，但是也比4分的点到而止要强了。



希望能给lz和大家有所帮助～

小涯子^^UID: 2601042

改的好详细啊，发现自己不足的地方还很多呢
学习！
话说lz怎么还没来去看看我的作业。。。

liyue24UID: 2350787

3# 小涯子^^
稍微给点耐心哈~~~^^

goingeastUID: 2439824

谢斑竹 批点，最近忙着Issue呢，我对A的认识又加深了

finkeUID: 2173184

来看看这个```欢迎拍砖阿！

In this argument, author reached a conclusion that to avoid the risk of fracture in older age, a planet supplement of Vitamin D and calcium is necessary. To provide evidence and support the recommendation, author cited the three-year experiment of one group with composed by eighties French women, and shown that according to the suggestion dose, the rate of hip fracture is less than the average level. Although author positively provided one possible way  to bring Gosper to alder people, several vital logic faults left author's argue into a invailiable questioned situation.

First all, author ignore the limit of experiment. According to the result of the experiment described by author, it is plausible to consider a higher amount supplement of vitamin D and calcium may help people who are in the later life to conquer the potential risk of bone fracture. However, the experiment is nothing than a proof that planet vitamin D and calcium is useful in 3 year and only helpful for the candidates who are 80 years old women. Author's solution did not provide any guarantee that the recommendation is available even in 3 year later. Moreover, it is also totally possible that twice supplement treatment only work for French ladies instead of all old people.

Secondly, during the experiment, additional requirement that candidates not only received vitamin D and calcium, but also exercise during that experimental period, might change the circumstance, and thus influence the credibility of the result. I would carious about the usage and purpose of light weightlifting program. In general acknowledge, a good exercise is benefit to people, and strengthen their bone and muscle system, which prevent a potential risk of fracture of bones.

In sum, author used a fault methodology of the experiment to provide evidence of the effect of vitamin D and calcium. I would suspend my decision to believe the treatment for the old people, unless author can provide additional information about the effectiveness for a longer time span and wider people scale. Moreover, a lower rate of hop fractures in the experiment is not because of additional exercise, which is only help the receiving of extra vitamin D and calcium.

sugarbeetUID: 129281

Argument 168
The argument is limited and need more evidence. the basis/premise for the argument is that older people is easy to got bone fractured because the bone mass decreases with ages. by taking the calcium and vitamin D. the bone get stronger, which will induce the risk to get the fracture.
but with biased study group and different research conditions, It's impossible to draw the right  conclusion.
First of all,  they study compare the group in nursing home with the non-nursing home residents. all research group should be put in a similar circumstance, It's obvious study group in nursing home have less chance to be exposed in dangerous situation which may lead to bone fracture. an extreme example, someone who is bedridden will never get bone broke if even his calcium is very low.
As a pharmaceutical research,  individual difference in human species due to diet habit, climate etc should be considered. the author failed to tell us the background about if the calcium or Vitamin D is easier to loss in French than in Asia, or  any correlations of these elements within the different species. In addition, there is no statistic data to tell us the difference between the twice amount of dose  and regular dose.
As to the study time, three years follow-up is enough or not depends on if there is accident happened. Outside the nursing room, someone may fall down twice, and her bone got bone at the second time, how do they do statistics analysis for that?  Is this treated like the same with someone's first time bone broken in nursing room.
last, Apparently, the light weightlifting program contribute to  the bone's healthy for anyone who even didn't take the Vitamin D and Calcium daily. there is no control group to tell us which is more competitive to reduce the chance for bone fracture, exercise, medicine or both are necessary?

Overall, It's hasty to draw the conclusion that we should take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily, much more evidences are needed to be told in the comparable research objects and circumstances.