ARGUMENT167 by Virtual_Pro

Virtual_ProUID：2560768

TOPIC:

ARGUMENT167 - 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.

WORDS: 488

TIME: 00:57:19

DATE: 2009-6-22 21:18:16

In this argument, the speaker concluded that the scent in lavender flowers, which was introduced by a folk remedy for insomnia, has been proved effective by a recent study, in which volunteers slept in a controlled room where their sleep was monitored. This study was complicated and implemented carefully, and therefore seems reliable. Close scrutiny of the study steps, however, reveals that it does not lead to credible support of the conclusion because of several vital logical flaws.

First, from the argument, we know that the study was held on 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia. We could immediately question that does 30 volunteers suffice enough to represent all insomnia patients and therefore support the proof of the effectiveness of the remedy. There are various kinds of insomnia and each one has its characteristics. It is possible that the 30 volunteers’ insomnia only accounts for a small part of insomnia categories and the effect of the remedy on other kinds of insomnia remains unknown through the study. In addition, the speaker mentioned that the volunteers were patients with chronic insomnia while the conclusion includes all patients with insomnia. It is obvious that, without adequate evidences, the result on the volunteers could not be spread to all patients with insomnia, and therefore gives little support of the conclusion.

Secondly, inspecting the study, we could know that the study lasted for three weeks. In the first week, the volunteers took their usual sleeping medication continuously while they did that discontinuously in the second week and did not do that in the third week. Their states after the study shifted from sleeping soundly but wakened feeling tired in the first week to sleeping less soundly and feeling even more tired in the second week and finally to sleeping longer and more soundly. The speaker based on the study inferred that over a short period of time lavender cures insomnia. However, the inference was made too hasty because of several reasons. In the first place, the effective time of the usual medication should be made clear. In the first week the volunteers slept soundly, and their feeling of tired was possibly resulted from the side-effects of the medication. However, the side-effect may disappear after two weeks as a result of the adaption of human body and the effect of the medication may last longer than two weeks. These assumptions are reasonable in both real life and medicine fields. Hence the better sleeping of the volunteers in the third week was possibly caused by the usual medication instead of the lavender.

In sum, the conclusion that the folk remedy for insomnia has been proved effective relies on the study that has several fatal flaws. In order to support the conclusion effectively, the study should be conduct on more volunteers with all kinds of insomnia while keep the volunteers into the same condition except the pillows to find their different sleeping feelings result from the remedy.

irvine666UID：2575525

ARGUMENT167 - 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.

WORDS: 488

TIME: 00:57:19

DATE: 2009-6-22 21:18:16

In this argument, the speaker concluded that the scent in lavender flowers, which was introduced by a folk remedy for insomnia, has been proved effective by a recent study, in which volunteers slept in a controlled room where their sleep was monitored. This study was complicated and implemented carefully, and therefore seems reliable. Close scrutiny of the study steps, however, reveals that it does not lead to credible support of the conclusion because of several vital logical flaws.（没这种搭配，vital换fatal）此外，按照你的开头来讲的话，下文应当更加专注于study当中对下文的insufficient support 以及一些logical flaws。

First, from the argument, we know that the study was held on 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia.（这句话是典型的废话，阅卷人比你清楚，不用你重复一遍题目的意思，应当直接进入论证--写30人的样本不够大。而且这种复述性质的话放在第一句里面，会让人摸不清你的主旨到底是什么。30分钟的ARGUMENT，时间紧迫，你只需要关注逻辑就行了。） We could immediately question that does 30 volunteers suffice enough（意思和suffice重复，可以砍掉） to represent all insomnia patients and therefore support the proof of the effectiveness of the remedy. There are various kinds of insomnia and each one has its （加一个particular，说明你的客观性） characteristics. It is possible that the 30 volunteers’ insomnia only accounts for a small part of insomnia categories and the effect of the remedy on other kinds of insomnia remains unknown through the study.（逻辑跳跃，实际上remains unknown并不能说明薰衣草花香对治疗这种类型的失眠无用。草草结束你的这块推理会让人感到迷惑，后面少了一些对unknown造成的后果的描述，比如If, for instance, the scent of lavender flowers is not so efficient in some unknown kinds of insomnia which are not included in the study, the author's conclusion might be somewhat too rash） In addition, the speaker mentioned that the volunteers were patients with chronic insomnia while the conclusion includes all patients with insomnia.(这个又是没有完全论述，只是你自己认为合理而已。你并没有在下文说明chronic insomnia为什么和结论中的insomnia有logical flaws, 因此就凭这一句话你完全无法说服你的读者。记住ARGUMENT是学术性的东西，每一步都需要及其严谨的推论才能证明作者是错的。如果你真的没时间细写的话，就砍掉它，写它10个逻辑错误点都是这样写，不如放掉8个或者9个，彻底写清楚其他的。) It is obvious that, without adequate evidences, the result on the volunteers could not be spread to（中式表达？换deputize） all patients with insomnia, and therefore gives little support of the conclusion.

本段总评：你对代表人数30的突破口找的不好。理由在这里：1.这个study不像是其他A当中的社会调查型study--几百个人都无法代表一个社区的同类人。这个study仅仅是用对比的方法来证明薰衣草花香有效的，因此只要样本是随机分配的，那么如果真的对比来讲，起到效果的话，30个人应该是足够证明结论的。因此你批30这个数字太少没有代表性过于牵强了，毕竟同时找到30个失眠症患者对小型研究来说都不是很容易的事情。2.你的它因当中提到了其他unknown的发病原因会否定掉疗效，事实上这种它因是极其无赖的，因为出于认知水平问题，几乎所有的病我们都会有unknown的kind，如果按照你的它因来否定，岂不是所有的临床试验都应该被否定了？事实上，这个题真正没有代表性的逻辑错误正是你找的in addition后面的那句话，这才是重点，可惜你并没有深入的去论证它。

Secondly, inspecting the study, we could know that the study lasted for three weeks. In the first week, the volunteers took their usual sleeping medication continuously while they did that discontinuously in the second week and did not do that in the third week. Their states after the study shifted from sleeping soundly but wakened feeling tired in the first week to sleeping less soundly and feeling even more tired in the second week and finally to sleeping longer and more soundly. The speaker based on the study inferred that over a short period of time lavender cures insomnia. （以上，全部是废话，通通的砍掉，都50+字了段落的主旨还没出来，估计也没人有兴趣再往下看了。ARGUMENT，讨论的是逻辑！不是你的COPY和RESTATE的水平，更不是按照字数给分！）However, the inference was made too hasty because of several reasons（我在下文只看到了一个reason）. In the first place, the effective time of the usual medication should be made clear.（研究的确是没有考虑到药物的有效期导致说服力不足，但是驳斥作者的推论和把药物的有效期made clear一毛钱的关系都没有。关于这个方面，你只需要提到药物的持续有效时间会影响到到实验的结论就行了，事实上你后面的论述就是这样的，但是你这个TS句子歪了，和你的后文完全没关系，这个非常致命。要知道，RATER时间紧迫，他才没空像我一样仔细分析你的前后文，然后猜测你要说的意思。大多数时候你的TS就直接决定了他的总体印象，TS写错，后文即使写对，给RATER的印象也是：这人思维混乱。） In the first week the volunteers slept soundly, and their feeling of tired was possibly resulted from the side-effects of the medication. However, the side-effect may disappear after two weeks as a result of the adaption of human body and the effect of the medication may last longer than two weeks.（我个人而言，强烈反对这种类型的写法，这相当于你在某一点上觉得有矛盾，但是你提供了海量的信息给读者，让他们从中自己分析领会你觉得有矛盾的那一点，显得极其罗嗦不说，还很容易造成误解。既然你关注的是药物的side-effects lasting time，那就直接说这种lasting time会影响到第二周的效果就行了。However之前的铺垫都可以砍掉，把however后面的话精简，然后加一个对比第一周的side-effects就行了。） These assumptions are reasonable in both real life and medicine fields. Hence the better sleeping of the volunteers in the third week was possibly caused by the usual medication instead of the lavender.

本段总评：你仅仅找到了一些比较次要的逻辑错误，关于更加关键的，我建议你先认真去看IQ28做的一期同主题，链接在这里：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-714914-1-1.html 然后最好能够重写这一段。

In sum, the conclusion that the folk remedy for insomnia has been proved effective relies on the study that has several fatal flaws. In order to support the conclusion effectively, the study should be conduct on more volunteers with all kinds of insomnia while keep the volunteers into the same condition except the pillows to find their different sleeping feelings result from the remedy.（个人习惯，结尾不批）

Virtual_ProUID：2560768

In this argument, the speaker concludes that the scent in lavender flowers, which was introduced by a folk remedy for insomnia, has been proved effective by a recent study, in which volunteers slept in a controlled room while their sleep was monitored. This study lasted for three weeks in different conditions, and therefore seems reliable. Close scrutiny of the study details, however, reveals that it does not lead to credible support of the conclusion because of several fatal logical flaws.

Firstly, the study was held on 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia, while the conclusion includes all patients with insomnia. It is obvious that the variation in the range causes a significant weakness in logic. The scent in lavender flowers may be particularly effective to the chronic insomnia yet ineffective to other kinds of insomnia. Then the result of the study could only reflect the effect to the chronic insomnia and is inadequate to prove the effect is the same to other kinds of insomnia. Hence the speaker’s conclusion is somewhat too rash to fulfill the intermediate steps in reasoning, so that could not be invulnerable.

Secondly, by comparing the volunteers’ sleeping states in the third week during the study with their sleeping states in the first and second week, the speaker draws the conclusion that the volunteers slept well in the third week and further reasons that lavender cured insomnia. Inspecting the reasoning, I would immediately question whether the volunteers’ sleeping was better in the third week than in the first and second one. The argument only mentioned that they slept longer and more soundly. However, sleeping longer and more soundly is not the same thing as sleeping well. What about the feeling after they woke up? If they felt more tired, the effect of the folk remedy was doubtful and consequently the conclusion was incredible.

In addition, even though the volunteers’ sleeping was better in the third week, the real reason remains unknown. It is possible caused by the lavender-scented pillows, but it is also possible result from the medication in the first week. Common sense tells us that the effect of some medications could last for a long period. If the medications taken by the volunteers in the first week have a long-term effect, they may cause the volunteers’ sleeping states in the third week instead of the lavender. Without a control group in the study, we could not make clear that what on earth result in the treatment effect in the third week, the folk remedy or the medication.

The author’s conclusion that “over a short period of time lavender cured insomnia” is easily arguable. The study was only held on the volunteers with chronic insomnia while other patients might have other kinds of insomnia. Besides, without a control group, we could not make sure the treatment results in the third week were caused by the lavender instead of the medication in the first week. To strengthen the speaker’s conclusion, the study should be held on volunteers with various kinds of insomnia. In addition, a control group should be set to exclude the alternative that the medication caused the treatment results the third week. Last but not least, a more detailed treatment result should be presented to ensure that the volunteers indeed slept well in the third week.