0910AW 同主题写作第七期 ARGUMENT167 by ken4huo

ken4huoUID: 2416482

Argument167A 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.
A三十名志愿者，参与这一实验，但是他们的失眠症状及治疗过程能否反映所有的失眠患者。比如志愿者中有一部分的失眠是间歇性的，这种间歇性失眠患者很可能在实验期间刚好处于睡眠高质量的时期。
B实验以三十名志愿者第一周的正常用药表现用作对照组，以第三周停止用药且使用薰衣草枕头表现用作实验组。结果可能是掺杂了由于天气、气温变化等引起三十名实验者睡眠质量的变化。而且志愿者在停止用药一周后，进行的实验。这一周的时间能否消除体内残留药物对志愿者睡眠质量的影响因素。
C实验对睡眠质量的评述用到词语是less or more sound以及less or more tired，常识告诉我们，睡眠质量是一个很主观的标准。实验更是采用如此模糊的词语来描述睡眠质量，因此完全有理由相信实验结果受到志愿者本身的主观影响十分之大。
D实验时间只有三周，对于一个慢性疾病，可能是不够长的。

The article concludes that the scent in lavender flowers has been proved effective to remedy insomnia. He cites a recent experiment, in which the sleep situations of 30 volunteers are monitored in different condition for 3 weeks, as the evidence. Yet, after careful consideration about the course of experiment, it is hard to believe the result of it is valid.

In the first place, the 30 volunteers who participated in the experiment might not represent all of the insomnia patients. The argument fails to exclude the possibility that several of the volunteers have an intermittent insomnia. Perhaps, during the experiment, their sleep quality is much better than usual. If it is in this case, the experiment result could not be generalized to all insomnia patients.

Secondly, the experiment use the 30 participants’ sleep situation under the influence of medication in the first week as the control group, meanwhile their situation after stopping medication for a week and using lavender scented pillows as the experiment group. For one thing, using the same participants as both control group and experiment group is not scientific. It is perhaps that, the influence of the different time might be huge, for example the change of weather and temperature in the three weeks might influence the patients. If this is true, it becomes hard to draw a conclusion that the good sleep is the result of lavender. For another thing, the argument does not provide enough information to confirm that one week is long enough to exclude the influence of residual medication in volunteers’ body. These flaws of the experiment decides it support the conclusion weakly.

Thirdly, the words including less or more soundly and less or more tired which are used in the experiment to describe sleep quality of volunteers are obviously not objective enough. Common sense tells us that sleep quality is a quite subjective standard. Thus the using of such vague words to judge the sleep situation is not convincible. It is entirely reasonable to believe that the experiment’s result is influenced by participants’ subjective conscious hugely.

The last but not the least important, the experiment time might be not long enough to judge the effectiveness of lavender to remedy of insomnia. Insomnia is a chronic disease which means the remedy of it might take a long time either. Perhaps after the three weeks, the sleep might be much worse. Thus, to testify the permanent effectiveness of the scented lavender pillows to improve sleep quality, the experiment should take a much longer time instead of just 3 weeks.

To sum up, the author’s argument mentioned above is not based on substantial evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. To strengthen the argument, the author should cite a valid experiment which uses a more representational participants group and has a more scientific course. As well, the article should provide the details of it.

lucarlUID: 2616426

ken编辑一下帖子，改改帖子主题。

ken4huoUID: 2416482

怎么还没有人给我改啊。。。。我就郁闷了。。。

lucarlUID: 2616426

copy上来的时候颜色不显示了，我上传了word版的附件。


The article concludes that the scent in lavender flowers has been proved effective to remedy insomnia. He cites a recent experiment, in which the sleep situations of 30 volunteers are monitored in different condition for 3 weeks, as the evidence. Yet, after careful consideration about the course of experiment, it is hard to believe the result of it is valid.

In the first place, the 30 volunteers who participated in the experiment might not represent all of the insomnia patients. The argument fails to exclude the possibility that several of the volunteers have an intermittent insomnia. Perhaps, during the experiment, their sleep quality is much better than usual. If it is in this case, the experiment result could not be generalized to all insomnia patients.

Secondly, the experiment use the 30 participants’ sleep situation under the influence of medication in the first week as the control group, meanwhile their situation after stopping medication for a week and using lavender scented pillows as the experiment group. For one thing, using the same participants as both control group and experiment group is not scientific (proper). It is perhaps that, the influence of the different time might be huge这是想说什么？, for example the change of weather and temperature in the three weeks might influence the patients. If this is true, it becomes hard to draw a conclusion that the good sleep is the result of lavender. For another thing, the argument does not provide enough information to confirm that one week is long enough我觉得，这样的语气要改一改，不要好像所有的argument都和你苦大仇深似的。(建议：It seems that one week is not enough to exclude the …) to exclude the influence of residual medication in volunteers’ body. These flaws of the experiment decide it support the conclusion weakly (affected it to support the conclusion successfully).


这个第二段给我的感觉，有点像是在翻译同主题中的破题思路。。。

Thirdly, the words including less or more soundly and less or more tired找的点很对，但是本段的TS没必要写这么罗嗦，建议：(the information of sleep conditions totally comes from the patients which are subjective and therefore ungrounded) which are used in the experiment to describe sleep quality of volunteers are obviously not objective enough. Common sense tells us that sleep quality is a quite subjective standard. Thus the using of such vague words to judge the sleep situation is not convincible. It is entirely reasonable to believe that the experiment’s result is influenced by participants’ subjective conscious hugely.

The last but not the least important, the experiment time might be not long enough to judge the effectiveness of lavender to remedy of insomnia. Insomnia is a chronic disease which means the remedy of it might take a long time either.这个从句没用 Perhaps after the three weeks, the sleep might be much worse. Thus, to testify the permanent effectiveness of the scented lavender pillows to improve sleep quality, the experiment should take a much longer time instead of just 3 weeks.

To sum up, the author’s argument mentioned above is not based on substantial evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. To strengthen the argument, the author should cite a valid experiment which uses a more representational participants group and has a more scientific course. As well, the article should provide the details of it.

Ken你这篇文章攻击的很理性，所有的他因都没有“耍无赖”的嫌疑。赞~
最开始提到的那个间歇性失眠也是比较合理的。
关于怎么更好的写好Argument，我看了一些精华，觉得很不错。推荐看一看哈：


草木版主的：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=968840&highlight
66版主的：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=927873&highlight