Argument113,写成这样离6分还有多远？

ystzxjUID: 2618627

"Three years ago, So-Low launched a nationwide ad campaign, focusing heavily on sunny regions and distributing free sunglasses there. But although So-Low sunglasses cost less than higher-priced brands, they block a smaller proportion of the Sun's rays, including the type of rays known to damage the eyes even when the person wearing the sunglasses feels no discomfort. A recent study suggests that So-Low sunglasses can actually increase the risk of damage to people's eyes by creating a false sense of security. The study shows a sharp increase in the incidence of vision problems in the sunny regions over the past three years. These findings suggest that anyone concerned about eye damage from the Sun should avoid So-Low brand and instead either pay for higher-priced brands or wear no sunglasses at all."
WORDS: 510 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2009-3-27 20:18:00

The author suggests that people should pay for higher-priced sunglasses instead of using So-Low production in order to protect their eyes. With some facts quoted in the argument, the author puts forward such advise based on his conclusion that So-Low is not efficient in protecting eye. Yet none of the facts could sufficiently bolster his conclusion and his suggestion is also one-sided.

To start with, So-Low sunglasses should be blamed of the increase in the incidence of vision problems is not convincing. Without a clear definition of vision problem, we don't know what's the real reason. In fact, not all vision problems attribute to rays from the Sun. Children who do some reading with eyes too close to the book could suffer from vision problems. People who watch lots of TV programs or use computer too long may also have vision problems. Besides, people tend to have problem in seeing as they grow old. So It is entirely possible that those baby-boomers have reached such an situation recent years. Or the sunspot action were excessively active in the past three years which was an aberration of normal condition. In a word, without ruling out all other possibility, the author could not hastily state that So-Low has little efficacy.

Even if So-Low cannot effectively protect eyes in sunny regions, the author should not make a generalization that it is not enough efficient in all areas. Perhaps people elsewhere tend to have low incidence of vision problems because of genetic propensity hence need not care much about protecting their eyes or avoiding Sun rays. And it is entirely possible that all kinds of rays do a lot harm to eyes but cannot blocked by So-Low are blocked by cumulus in other areas, hence cannot reach people's eye even they wear nothing at all. If this is the case, we could expect people who are not living in sunny areas could use So-Low to protect themselves perfectly and enjoy a low price at the same time.

What's more, granted So-Low is useless everywhere, the author's suggestion may still not be sound because he doesn't provide any information of other brands and carelessly asserts that even no sunglasses is better than So-Low. He made no comparison between So-Low and its competitors. We are not convincingly proved that higher-priced brands could achieve which So-Low failed to do. If the rays most harmful cannot be blocked by any glasses, the higher price is just a waste of money. Moreover, as a common sense, it is better, more or less, to wear sunglasses than wear nothing.

In sum, although the author is acting in his best interest and trying to benefit people's health, his suggestion seems to have no value. At least, he should analyze the performance of So-Low in other areas and that of other brands in sunny regions. And a further investigation is needed to locate the real reason of the higher incidence of vision problems happened recent years.


谢谢大家~~！！

ystzxjUID: 2618627

自己顶

ystzxjUID: 2618627

一个回复的都没有啊

justdoit!UID: 2533175

还有一定的距离。。。一会给你细说啊

ystzxjUID: 2618627

4# justdoit!
哦，好~

justdoit!UID: 2533175

"Three years ago, So-Low launched a nationwide ad campaign, focusing heavily on sunny regions and distributing free sunglasses there. But although So-Low sunglasses cost less than higher-priced brands, they block a smaller proportion of the Sun's rays, including the type of rays known to damage the eyes even when the person wearing the sunglasses feels no discomfort. A recent study suggests that So-Low sunglasses can actually increase the risk of damage to people's eyes by creating a false sense of security. The study shows a sharp increase in the incidence of vision problems in the sunny regions over the past three years. These findings suggest that anyone concerned about eye damage from the Sun should avoid So-Low brand and instead either pay for higher-priced brands or wear no sunglasses at all."
WORDS: 510 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2009-3-27 20:18:00

The author suggests that people should pay for higher-priced sunglasses instead of using So-Low production in order to protect their eyes(简单也要完整啊！）. With some facts quoted in the argument, the author puts forward such advise based on his conclusion that So-Low is not efficient in protecting eye. Yet none of the facts could sufficiently bolster his conclusion and his suggestion is also one-sided.（感觉分析的不太到位啊，还是该把作者的论据——结论之间的关系找好，列在开头，这样不仅给人清晰的思路，还可给自己列了一个提纲，给出了下面的攻击攻击顺序！）

To start with, So-Low sunglasses should be blamed of the increase in the incidence of vision problems is not convincing.（可以直接从现象说明嘛，the increasing vision problems cannot prove the fact it is So-Low sunglasses that contributes to this problem） （攻击顺序，这个攻击点放在后面吧！可以穿在the sunglasses 引起的vision problem 中）Without a clear definition of vision problem, we don't know what's the real reason. In fact, not all vision problems attribute to rays from the Sun. (for instance)Children who do some reading with eyes too close to the book (pay no attention to the distance from their eyes to the books)could suffer from vision problems. (Additionally)People who watch lots of TV programs or use computer too long may also have(cause, give rise to, contribute to, lead to...) vision problems. Besides, people tend to have problem in seeing(??) as they grow old(要注意语言啊！）.So It is entirely possible that those baby-boomers have reached such an situation recent years. Or the sunspot action were excessively active in the past three years which was an aberration（赞！） of normal condition. In a word, without ruling out all other possibility, the author could not hastily state that So-Low has little efficacy.（1.语言，要改的太多了  2. 我觉得啊，列举的实例之间还是应该有点关系的啊，不然就很像堆砌了）

Even if So-Low cannot effectively protect eyes in sunny regions, the author should not make a generalization that it is not enough efficient in all areas. Perhaps people elsewhere tend to have low incidence of vision problems because of genetic propensity hence need not care much about protecting their eyes or avoiding Sun rays. And it is entirely possible that all kinds of rays do a lot harm to eyes but cannot blocked by So-Low are blocked by cumulus in other areas（？？）, hence cannot reach people's eye even they wear nothing at all. If this is the case, we could expect people who are not living in sunny areas could use So-Low to protect themselves perfectly and enjoy a low price at the same time.

What's more, granted So-Low is useless（not of use） everywhere, the author's suggestion may still not be sound because he doesn't provide any information of other brands and carelessly asserts that even no sunglasses is better than So-Low. He made no comparison between So-Low and its competitors. We are not convincingly proved that higher-priced brands could achieve which So-Low failed to do. If the rays most harmful cannot be blocked by any glasses, the higher price is just a waste of money. Moreover, as a common sense, it is better, more or less, to wear sunglasses than wear nothing.

In sum, although the author is acting in his best interest and trying to benefit people's health, his suggestion seems to have no value. At least, he should analyze the performance of So-Low in other areas and that of other brands in sunny regions. And a further investigation is needed to locate the real reason of the higher incidence of vision problems happened recent years.
1. 如果按你这样攻击，感觉有些攻击点是否漏掉了呢？
2.语言，多看看北美吧！
(ps:马上我们要断电了，后面没怎么改，明天吧！）

justdoit!UID: 2533175

本人已经好久没写A了， 改得不好见笑了。。。。

ystzxjUID: 2618627

6# justdoit!
非常感谢~
开头写的不好，我自己也知道。
上次考G的时候写argument就是每个错误如果有好多范例也只举一个，分析透这一个
但是有人说这样不够全面，应该多举些例子。
所以现在光照顾广度了
至于有没有漏错误，我觉得漏掉的错误也是不重要的。
作者就是说这个牌子的眼镜在强日照地区没用反而有害，所以在所有地区应该用更贵的或者干脆不带
那么这条逻辑线就应该先说不一定强日照地区它没用-->就算这样也不一定在所有地区会没用-->哪怕它完全是个垃圾，未必更贵的就更好，而且用总比不用好。
第三段你打问号的那句意思是说那些伤害很大的光线在日照不强烈的地区会被云层罩挡住，所以这种眼镜用在日照不强的地区就足够了。
有遗漏掉很重要的逻辑错误么？
语言。。。残念。。。语言的确不行。。。好久没学英语都忘光了。。。