argument167=so what=第5次作业 by fengrui129

fengrui129UID: 2639927

167. A folk remedy* for insomnia, the scent in lavender flowers, has now been proved effective. In a recent study, 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia slept each night for three weeks on lavender-scented pillows in a controlled room where their sleep was monitored. During the first week, volunteers continued to take their usual sleeping medication. They slept soundly but wakened feeling tired. During the second week, the volunteers discontinued their medication. As a result, they slept less soundly than the previous week and felt even more tired. During the third week, the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than in the previous two weeks. This shows that over a short period of time lavender cures insomnia.

A folk remedy is usually a plant-based form of treatment common to traditional forms of medicine, ones that developed before the advent of
modern medical services and technology.

一种治疗失眠的偏方--薰衣草花香，现在被证明是有效的。在一次最近的调查中，30名患有慢性失眠的志愿者在三周之内每晚都在一个受监视的控制室内睡在带薰衣草花香的枕头上。在第一周，志愿者继续服用他们常用的安眠药。他们睡得很沉但醒来时很累。在第二周，他们不服用药物。结果与前一周相比他们睡得不那么沉并且感觉更累。在第三周，他们睡得比前两周时间长而且更深。这表明薰衣草在短时间内治愈了失眠。

*偏方通常是一种在传统医药中常见的植物治疗形式，这些传统医药是在现代医药服务和科技出现之前发展起来的。


1 30个人样本不足，不能说明问题。
2 有着一周的间隔时间，但是作者在实验中设置了这一周没有用药的时间是为了消除安眠药的作用么？安眠药的影响真的被消除了么？显然，我们无法知道第三周的结果到底是熏衣草的疗效还是前面安眠药的疗效
3 没有对照组。可能是因为第二周太疲劳第三周才睡得久。
4 就算前面说到的错误都可以忽略，也就是说可以推导出由于使用了熏衣草而使第三周的情况发生，但是材料对于第三周的描述仅仅是‘睡得更深跟长’。第三周的睡眠的效果呢？醒来之后是不是比前三周还要累了呢？




一鼓作气，再写了一篇  字数：470

fengrui129UID: 2639927

In this memo, the author recommends that over a short period of time lavender cures insomnia. To substantiate it, the writer cite a survey indicating that people with chronic insomnia slept longer and more soundly after they receive folk remedy. The author also supports that lavender is effective by making a comparison between the effect of the lavender and the impact of the sleeping medication. Yet close scrutiny reveals that neither of them lends credible support to this recommendation.

First of all, the survey cited by the author is statistically unconvincing, for only 30 people are involved in this experiment. In order to demonstrate that lavender can cure chronic insomnia, the survey’s sample must be sufficient in size and representative of the overall population who suffered from chronic insomnia. Flying in face of such limited evidence, this survey is far from being useful.

Even assuming that this survey is statistically reliable, the author fails to establish a casual relationship between the effect of lavender and the number of cured people and assumes that the former is responsible for the later. Nevertheless, the author may overlook the possibility that sleeping medication may potentially exert influence on the cure of chronic insomnia. Though there is one week that those patients have not taken the medicine, what’s the intention of the one week’s spare time? Can it really prevent people from being influenced by the sleeping medication? Any of those scenarios, if happened, serves to undermine the result of this experiment.

Similarly, the author’s assertion amounts to scant evidences that the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than in the previous two weeks   It is entirely possible that those people sleep long and sound just because they fell too tired in the previous two weeks, instead of the effect of lavender. Thus, lacking strong evidence, the author’s conclusion cannot be taken seriously.

Even assuming that they really sleep longer and more sound than before, it cannot necessarily imply that lavender cures insomnia. The memo only mentions the phenomenon that they seem to sleep better, but it can hardly lead to the improvement of sleeping quality.  Perhaps when those patients weak up, they feel even more tired than the occasion that they have not receive the remedy. However, the author mentions nothing about those patients feeling and merely based on the alleged good phenomenon that they sleep longer and better.

In conclusion, this argument is dubious and indefensible as it stands. To bolster it the author must offer perhaps by way of a reliable survey in which samples can represent the whole group. The author also excludes other possible factors which may influence the result of the experiment, and thereby ensuring the reliability of this experiment. To better access this recommendation, I would need to know the reaction of those volunteers toward the experiment.

linyan821230UID: 2638813

In this memo, the author recommends that over a short period of time lavender cures insomnia. To substantiate it, the writer cite (cites) a survey indicating that people with chronic insomnia slept longer and more soundly after they receive (前面slept都用了过去时，这里是不是该用received the) folk remedy. The author also supports that lavender is effective by making a comparison between the effect of the lavender and the impact of the sleeping medication. Yet close scrutiny reveals that neither of them lends credible support to this recommendation.

First of all, the survey cited by the author is statistically unconvincing, for only 30 people are involved in this experiment. In order to demonstrate that lavender can cure chronic insomnia, the survey’s sample must be sufficient in size and representative of the overall population who suffered from chronic insomnia. Flying in face of such limited evidence, this survey is far from being useful.

Even assuming that this survey is statistically reliable, the author fails to establish a casual relationship between the effect of lavender and the number of cured people and assumes that the former is responsible for the later. Nevertheless (这里有转折的意思吗？), the author may overlook the possibility that sleeping medication may potentially exert influence on the cure of chronic insomnia. Though there is one week that those patients have not taken the medicine, what’s the intention of the one week’s spare time? Can it really prevent people from being influenced by the sleeping medication? Any of those scenarios, if happened, serves to undermine the result of this experiment.
我觉得这段话没有清晰的表达你想表达的内容。你想说失眠的成功治疗可能是安眠药的作用，不一定是薰衣草的作用，不如在第一句就把观点说明白。你在第一句中提出，“作者并未在薰衣草和治愈病人人数之间建立起因果关系”，我觉得这二者之间本就没有因果关系，应该是“薰衣草和失眠症痊愈”之间有因果关系。接下来的转折，指出作者忽略了安眠药的潜在作用。我觉得第二句更接近你的观点，第一句没有其他内容支持，显得有点空洞无力。

Similarly, the author’s assertion amounts to scant evidences that the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than in the previous two weeks   It is entirely possible that those people sleep long and sound just because they fell too tired in the previous two weeks, instead of the effect of lavender. Thus, lacking strong evidence, the author’s conclusion cannot be taken seriously.

Even assuming that they really sleep longer and more sound than before, it cannot necessarily imply that lavender cures insomnia. The memo only mentions the phenomenon that they seem to sleep better, but it can hardly lead to the improvement of sleeping quality.  Perhaps when those patients weak up, they feel even more tired than the occasion that they have not receive (received) the remedy. However, the author mentions nothing about those patients (patients’) feeling and merely based on the alleged good phenomenon that they sleep longer and better.

In conclusion, this argument is dubious and indefensible as it stands. To bolster it the author must offer perhaps by way of a reliable survey in which samples can represent the whole group (所有患病人群the whole group of people with chronic insomnia). The author also excludes (needs to exclude 这是他目前没有做到的) other possible factors which may influence the result of the experiment, and thereby ensuring the reliability of this experiment. To better access (为了更好的“评价”吗？assess) this recommendation, I would need to know the reaction of those volunteers toward the experiment.

感觉上作者的行文可以随心所欲，表达方式多样，语言功底好，在看作文的时候我也很有收获，非常感谢。
个人认为第三段的表达不如其他段落清晰，观点不够鲜明。
另外，关于时态的疑问，对于题目中表述的内容一般是不是都用一般时，例如，the author writes等，如果题目中提及的内容用了过去时，例如本题中的slept longer的研究内容，在写作文时也使用一致的时态，用一般过去时，是这样吗？