Argument168 【0906G 同主题第一期】

小涯子^^UID: 2601042

7楼是新写的哈~
提纲：
1. 错误假设骨折跟骨质疏松有关。
2. 样本的选择不具代表性
   女人 80 法国 有人照顾 还参加锻炼，太特殊鸟。
3. study的过程存在问题：
   a.实验结果没有说服力，髋骨不能说明其它骨头。
   b.即使有效也没有排除其它更有效的方案，两倍量是否最有效？
   c.三年很短，过量有没有副作用？
First, the arguer falsely depends on gratuituos assumption that it is the decrease in bone mass mainly result in the fracture in later life. But this is fallacious reasoning unless other possible causal explanations, such as accidents  have been considered and ruled out. Once it has been proved that it is accidents that cause most fractures of old people, the chief solution should emphasis on protection rather than to increase the bone mass, and then the three-year study will become an insignificant support to the final suggestion.
Secondly, besides the suspect assumption, the study itself suffers from a severe biased-sample fallacy. The group of French women in their eighties who were nursing-home residents cannot represent the population under consideration. For example, if the samples include only 10 or 20 healthy women whose bones are stronger than average initially, then the results would not doubt suggest the recommendation will absolutely reduce the risk of fracture. As the arguer claims these old women are also participating light weightlifting program during the three years, which is very likely have influence on their bones. As we all know, men have a different bone structure with women; People from different countries suffer various climates which affect their bone mass; and bones of those who are not nursing-home resident may be more vulnerable in accidents. Thus, people of different ages with different nationalities and living conditions should take part in the study, to ensure the recommendation is appropriate to the entire spectrum.  

In additon, the study also has some flaws with its process. First, the result is just concluded from their much lower rate of hip fractures than average for their age, but it cannot ensure the methods will also develop other parts of their bones. In addition, fractures may usually happen at ankles, arms, or knees rather than hips. Finally, as it claims, during the study the women take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily, but no data is available to prove that fewer or more doses will not achieve the same goal or even better. Besides, the study also lack of the data about other body conditions of these women after the three years, for the superfluous vitamin D and calcium may bring some side-effects to old people.

小涯子^^UID: 2601042

自己顶下！~

goingeastUID: 2439824

First, the arguer falsely depends on gratuituos[gratuitous] assumption that it is the decrease in bone mass mainly result in the fracture in later life. But this is fallacious reasoning unless other possible causal explanations, such as accidents [这加个逗号吧]have been considered and ruled out. Once it has been proved that it is accidents that cause most fractures of old people, the chief solution should emphasis on protection rather than to[去掉？]increase the bone mass, and then the three-year study will become an insignificant support to the final suggestion.【首段点出关键问题 骨折的其他因素】

Secondly, besides the suspect assumption, the study itself suffers from a severe biased-sample fallacy. The group of French women in their eighties who were nursing-home residents cannot represent the population under consideration. For example, if the samples include only 10 or 20①healthy women whose bones are stronger than average initially, then the results would not doubt suggest the recommendation will absolutely reduce the risk of fracture. As the arguer claims these old women are also participating light weightlifting program during the three years, which is very likely have influence on their bones. As we all know, men have a different bone structure[lz 想说骨质不同吧是这词 sclerotin 骨架还是男女一样] with women; People from different countries suffer various climates which affect their bone mass; and bones of those who are not nursing-home resident may be more vulnerable in accidents. Thus, people of different ages with different nationalities and living conditions should take part in the study, to ensure the recommendation is appropriate to the entire spectrum.  【这段里，说了这个样本的问题，我觉有我们模板的影子，比如说①句，按范文整体感觉有点冗】

In additon[addition], the study also has some flaws with its process. First, the result is just concluded from their much lower rate of hip fractures than average for their age, but it cannot ensure the methods will also develop other parts of their bones. In addition, fractures may usually happen at ankles, arms, or knees rather than hips[这个不敢苟同，我查了，老年人就是爱在髋骨骨折].Finally, as it claims, during the study the women take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily, but no data is available to prove that fewer or more doses will not achieve the same goal or even better②. Besides, the study also lack of the data about other body conditions of these women after the three years, for the superfluous vitamin D and calcium may bring some side-effects to old people.

Lz 这篇论证还好，按范文的特点讲，模式化比范文重，有些理由只是一笔带过，比如说②句，可以在细致些，说可能多了，会吸收不了，反而浪费等等。


ps 呵呵 让楼上就等了 不好意思

小涯子^^UID: 2601042

哇~。。。
之前太心急真是不应该啊，楼上改的好认真啊。
头一次写果然还是很有差距，看着调查就想着调查类错误。。。。。被模板毒害了
回去改！坚决抛弃模板！

liyue24UID: 2350787

1) suspect assumption, 是不是应该是suspicious？～ 不过这个问题不大。

2）then the results would not doubt suggest the recommendation will absolutely reduce the risk of fracture.
这句就…… 是不是应该would no doubt suggest ? 后面如果will absolutely reduce，那suggest 后面是不是应该加个that？总之这个句子我读起来觉得别扭～～^^

3)As the arguer claims these old women are also participating light weightlifting program during the three years
是不是用过去时态可能好点？


anyway，语法上自己可以给自己再精雕一下，下次写的时候就会提高了。

但是这篇习作我觉得就不如goingeast了，如果对比的话可能也就是3分或是4分的范文。写到的地方都是点到为止，而且很多内容比较虚，空洞。lz不妨看看这次同主题的总贴，再看看我给goingeast的修改，是不是自己可以打破思路，迈上5～6分的境界呢？:)

加油加油～～

liyue24UID: 2350787

另，模板并不可怕，关键是在我们怎么用它。

我不提倡用模板大段大段的套写出没有信息量的东西，但是我也不提倡完全自己天马行空的来操作。

凡事不是“左”就是“右”，这样不好，要能把握住方向，不“左”也不“右”，走在中间最好了。:)

小涯子^^UID: 2601042

嗯，明白了。fighting!~

小涯子^^UID: 2601042

重新写了一篇：
提纲：
1. 作者忽略了导致骨折的直接原因
2. 推荐的摄入量的作用和效果不明确
As the author claims taking twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily can effectively reduce the risk of fractures in later life, according to the cited study. Although sound as it seems, the reasoning is specious.

First of all, the author fails to consider the most direct cause of bone factures, while the decrease of bone mass is one factor which causes the vulnerableness of elder's bones. Usually people get factures when they tumble or wrench. For old people their factures may also result directly in the body stress or even chogh. However, the author fails to prove that most elder would still encounter bone factures when the direct causes mentioned above are ruled out–which means all the elder are well attended in comfortable environment while taking light exercise to improve their ability of keeping balance and lower the rate of tumble. It is entirely possible that measures to keep elder away from get tumble can be more effective than merely increase their bone mass.

Besides, the conclusion should still be suspended before the effect on elder’s bones of twice recommended doses vitamin D and calcium being illustrated. Even though the decrease of bone mass can be alleviated by supplement of calcium, the author does not provide valid data about the effect of the suggested dose. Perhaps further study may reveal that thrice recommended doses can develop elder’s bones into a better state, or since the recommended dose must be suggested according to the body absorb ability, and the superfluous calcium might be wasted. Meanwhile, data about the lack of calcium of those women’s body has not been given. Other elder’s demand may be distinct with theirs. Additionally, the study would be more convincing if the effect of vitamin D and calcium are tested respectively, to identify their respective function and how much of each one should be taken for different people.