=七月流火=小组第3次小组作业 Argument167 by maggiegu1019

maggiegu1019UID: 2683879

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: 443 (501)
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-8-23 23:03:15

The arguer draws a conclusion that the lavender can cure insomnia after a short period of time. The argument rest on a recent study which is participate by only 30 people. A careful examination reveals how groundless the argument is.

Firstly, the argument rests on an unscientific and unwarranted experiment, therefore the result will be inaccurate and open to question. Only 30 people participate in the study, can not lend a convincing reference for any conclusion. The total amount of the samples is too limited to provide statistical significant. However, another problem inherited in the study is that lacking of evidence to guarantee the random selection of the samples, make the result of the study unreasoning. Besides, to make the experiment more scientific, another group of people will be gathered, since inevitable the control group is to a scientific and convincing experiment.

Secondly, the insufficient evidence provided fails to lend a solid validate to the arguer to draw the conclusion that the lavender can cure insomnia after a short period of time. During the first week the volunteers take their usual medicine together with the scent of lavender flower, how can we make sure that whether the medicine or the lavender flower render the validity. While turning to the second week, the medication though is discontinued the volunteers feel slept less soundly and more tired. And by this we can deduce that the scent of lavender flowers is useless in the treatment of insomnia, which can be considered as opposite evidence to the arguer’s conclusion. Then comes to the third week, the volunteers sleep more soundly and longer than they used to be perhaps due to the reason that, they are not sleep well for the last two weeks hence they are so tired. The duration of sleeping in the first two weeks are not mentioned in the argument. And the arguer do not suggest how are the volunteers feel of tiring, which infirm the possibility I supposed may exist.

The argument commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. How can the arguer draw the conclusion that the lavender can cure insomnia after a short period of time, only through an oversimplified and unscientific study, which is accomplished merely over three weeks. By the evidences provided in the argument we can also draw a conclusion opposite to that of the arguer. There may exists many other factors, which may play a negative influence on the study, should not be omitted such as when the volunteers know that they are monitored ,they will feel depressed and get difficult to fall asleep, which will fundamentally exert a unrelenting effect on the result of the experiment. To make the conclusion more scientific and convincing, an accurate study involve a control group, representative samples and sufficient volunteers would better be carried on.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable the arguer should be supposed to demonstrate that the lavender flowers do exert an unrelenting role in curing the insomnia.

knx1029UID: 2609556

The arguer draws a conclusion that the lavender can cure insomnia after a short period of time. The argument rests on a recent study which is participated by only 30 people. A careful examination reveals how groundless the argument is.

Firstly, the argument rests on an unscientific and unwarranted experiment, therefore the result will be inaccurate and open to question. Only 30 people participated in the study, can not lend a convincing reference for any conclusion（这句话的主语是个句子的话，应该在only前面加that来引导）. The total amount of the samples is too limited to provide statistical significant. However, another problem inherited in the study is that lacking of evidence to guarantee the random selection of the samples, make the result of the study unreasoning（unreasoning是不凭理智的意思，你确定是要表达这个?）. Besides, to make the experiment more scientific, another group of people will be gathered, since inevitable the control group is to a scientific and convincing experiment.

Secondly, the insufficient evidence provided fails to lend a solid validate(validate是动词...) to the arguer to draw the conclusion that the lavender can cure insomnia after a short period of time. During the first week the volunteers take their usual medicine together with the scent of lavender flower, how can we make sure that （that可以去掉了，后面有引导词）whether the medicine or the lavender flower render the validity. While turning to the second week, the medication though is discontinued the volunteers feel slept less soundly and more tired. And by this we can deduce that the scent of lavender flowers is useless in the treatment of insomnia, which can be considered as opposite evidence to the arguer’s conclusion. Then comes to the third week, the volunteers sleep more soundly and longer than they used to be perhaps due to the reason that, they are not sleep well for the last two weeks hence they are so tired. The duration of sleeping in the first two weeks are not mentioned in the argument. And the arguer do not suggest how are the volunteers feel of tiring, which infirm the possibility I supposed may exist.(你想写的是不是from which the infirm possibility I supposed may exist.?)

(Finally,)The argument commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. How can the arguer draw the conclusion that the lavender can cure insomnia after a short period of time, only through an oversimplified and unscientific study, which is accomplished merely over three weeks. By the evidences provided in the argument we can also draw a conclusion opposite to that of the arguer. There may exists many other factors, which may play a negative influence on the study, should not be omitted such as when the volunteers know that they are monitored ,they will feel depressed and get difficult to fall asleep, which will fundamentally exert a unrelenting effect on the result of the experiment. To make the conclusion more scientific and convincing, an accurate study involve a control group, representative samples and sufficient volunteers would better be carried on.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable the arguer should be supposed to demonstrate that the lavender flowers do exert an unrelenting role in curing the insomnia.

我觉得除了第一段，后面几段还是在攻击这个实验做的不好。所以第一段的第一句那么写有一点点笼统了。不如直接就说它的quantity和quality有问题。
后面两段都是攻击这个研究的话，我觉得最好在开头就写出来这个实验究竟是什么地方做得不好。
比如第二个攻击点是，这个实验这三周不具有对比性。
第三个攻击点是，它没有考虑到其他因素对实验结果的影响。