argument76 我的第一篇

wssyq1989UID: 2562864

Topic:76.The following appeared as part of an article in a health and beauty
magazine.
"A group of volunteers participated in a study of consumer responses to
the new Luxess face cream. Every morning for a month, they washed their
faces with mild soap and then applied Luxess. At the end of that month,
most volunteers reported a marked improvement in the way their skin looked
and felt. Thus it appears that Luxess is truly effective in improving the
condition of facial skin."
word:451              Time: 00:45:34            Date:09/08/02  13:43:24

In the argument, the author advocates that the new Luxess face cream(LFC) is effective in proving the condition of facial skin. In order to corroborate the recommendation, the arguer points out that a study has proved the efficiency of LFC. However, to my knowledge, after thorough cogitating, I think the argument is logically faulty.

First and foremost, the volunteers are not representative of the whole population, for it is widely known that there are divers types of skins such as oily skin and dry skin. Obviously, different types of skins fit different kinds of cosmetics. In lots of global cosmetic companies, a series of exercises must be tested on all types of skins before their new cosmetics face us customers, of course, all testers are picked and professional. Only by this way, can their scientists get the actual information concerning the new ones. Comparatively, the volunteers' responses lack credible persuasion.

Additionally, even though the volunteers are picked and professional, the author cannot get the conclusion for he or she commits a wrongness of 'Post hoc, ergo propter hoc'. Barely based on the improvement reported after using LFC, the author recommends that the LFC is effective in improving the condition of facial skin. However, nearly 50 kinds of measures are capable of improving the condition, even a night of nice sleep can
let the skin look better. It is totally possible that the mild soap plays a key role in the improvement. Moreover, the author fails to show a causal relationship between the improvement and the LFC without ruling out such other possibilities. For that matter, it is unfair to conclude the recommendation.

Even assumes that the LFC relates to the improvement, and that no other possibilities involves in the study, the arguer's recommendation that Luxess is truly effective lacks cogency, for it is unfair to make a conclusion about Luxess merely by testing one of its products. Undoubtedly, an individual's characteristic can not apply to the other members', though they belong to the same group. The author mentions no any other data about any other products of the Luxess. Perhaps, in the series of Luxess's facial cosmetics, just the LFC may be efficient. Therefore, only informed about all the other products of Luxess, can the arguer make a judgment about Luxess.


To sum up, the argument is deficient in credibility, for none of the cited evidence does show strong or direct support to what the arguer maintains. Thus, in attempt to make it logically acceptable, the arguer must present more sufficient facts concerning the definite information of the volunteers, the direct relation between the reported improvement and the LRC. Meanwhile, we also need the data about the other products of Luxess.