Argument168 [黄金十二宫山羊]第五次作业

魏玛竹林UID: 2201594

TOPIC: ARGUMENT168 - Typically, as people age, their bone mass decreases, making them more vulnerable to bone fractures. A recent study concludes that the most effective way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life is to take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily. The three-year study followed a group of French women in their eighties who were nursing-home residents. The women were given daily supplements of twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium. In addition, the women participated in a light weightlifting program. After three years, these women showed a much lower rate of hip fractures than is average for their age.
提纲
1．        样本具有选择性：养老院的法国妇女的髋骨
2．        关键词具有隐藏性：轻微运动 较低比例
3．        急于概括：无法说明维他命和钙的量及比例怎样才是最好
In this argument, the author draws a conclusion-- to take twice the recommended dose of  vitamin D and calcium daily is the best way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life--from a recent study that has followed a group of French women in their eighties who were nursing-home residents for three years.It seems to be a short step from believing that this claim does make sense ,however,a further consideration tells me that the samples of the study are too selective to be suffient to support the assertion.
First of all,the senior the group of French women living in nursing-home is special enough to make the result of the study meaningless. Because it seems to us very important to know wether it is because the given vitamin D and calcium prevent them from fractures ,or wether some other factors,such as nationality,sex,living conditions,are the causes.It is wildly known that people in France,the most romantic country in the world,live a much higher quaulity life than people in other conties,espacially those in the rural areas of the third world ones. Maybe it’s just the linving level rather than the vitamin D and calcium that cause the differnent rate of hip fractures between the them. Living conditions also should be considered. For the women metioned above live in a nuring-home,most people would share a beliefe that those women are less likely to hurt themselves and get fractures even without the given vitamin D and calcium.Furthermore,granted that vitamin D and calcium in certain amounts are benificial to women ,what about man? The argument says nothing about their effect on men, so it therefore cannot make the recommendation that all people should take vitamin D and calcium. Meanwhlie,the study leaves other bodyparts except hip out of consideration,that largely weaken the validity of its result.
What if consider some important terminology in the argument? For example,what does “a light weightlifting program” mean?Dose it mean a designed activity to make the bone stronger?Or does it mean just a causal walk under the sunshine ? And what does “lower rate of hip fractures”mean?Does it mean the vitamin D and calcium-taking women will still probably suffer fractures?Or that mean they absolutely will not have factures? The problem is that the key term in the argument are too vague to be meaningful.
Last but not the least,the arguer fails to justify his advice is the best choice.All along the study, twice vitamin D and calcium are used together.Yet,it may be wrong to jump to any cause-and-effect conclusions.The impact of vitamin D on the calcium obsording is no less cloudy than the calcium’s impact on fractures.We need further experients which use those two in other different proportions to find the best macth..
To sum up,the argument is not cogent bacause it relies on a meaningless study as noted earlier.The author has to rule out other possible factors to justify his conclusion.

[ 本帖最后由 魏玛竹林 于 2006-6-3 00:09 编辑 ]

asong2004UID: 2178054

In this argument, the author draws a conclusion-- to take twice the recommended dose of  vitamin D and calcium daily is the best way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life--from a recent study that has followed a group of French women in their eighties who were nursing-home residents for three years.It seems to be a short step from believing that this claim does make sense ,however,a further consideration tells me that the samples of the study are too selective to be suffient to support the assertion.（主要是说作者的论据——调查不行啊）
First of all,the senior（这里少什么） the group of French women living in nursing-home is special enough to make the result of the study meaningless. Because it seems to us very important to know wether it is because（due to） the given vitamin D and calcium prevent them from fractures ,or wether （wether or not 的句式吧）some other factors,such as nationality,sex,living conditions,are the causes.（下面这个例子是说nationality ？）It is wildly （一般好像是well）known that people in France,the most romantic country in the world（其实这个修饰语没什么意义，不说是发达国家，也好和下面的形成对比）,live a much higher quaulity life than people （和life对应）in other conties,espacially those in the rural areas of the third world ones. Maybe it’s just the linving level rather than the vitamin D and calcium that cause the differnent rate of hip fractures between the them. Living conditions also should be considered（之前那个好像就是生活。。。）For the women metioned above live in a nuring-home,most people would share a beliefe that those women are less likely to hurt themselves and get fractures even without the given vitamin D and calcium.（众所周知吗，那要看护干什么？感觉不可行也）Furthermore,granted that vitamin D and calcium in certain amounts are benificial to women ,what about man? The argument says nothing about their effect on men, so it therefore cannot make the recommendation that all people should take vitamin D and calcium. Meanwhlie,the study leaves other bodyparts except hip out of consideration,that largely weaken the validity of its result.
What if consider some important terminology in the argument? （汗，这句怎么讲）For example,what does “a light weightlifting program”（觉得这个program可以归入他因里） mean?Dose it mean a designed activity to make the bone stronger?Or does it mean just a causal walk under the sunshine ? And what does “lower rate of hip fractures”mean?Does it mean the vitamin D and calcium-taking women will still probably suffer fractures?Or that mean they absolutely will not have factures? （人家多说了低比例，可是还有啊？反驳的无力）The problem is that the key term in the argument are too vague to be meaningful.
Last but not the least,the arguer fails to justify his advice is the best choice.All along the study, twice vitamin D and calcium are used together.Yet,it may be wrong to jump to any cause-and-effect conclusions.（想说他们之间没有因果关系？）The impact of vitamin D on the calcium obsording is no less cloudy than the calcium’s impact on fractures（看不懂）.We need further experients which use those two in other different proportions to find the best macth..（还是有因果的）还是想表达两个原因间的问题？
To sum up,the argument is not cogent bacause it relies on a meaningless study as noted earlier.The author has to rule out other possible factors to justify his conclusion.
看来文章主要是驳斥作者的调查不够，恩和我过去的想法一样。现在已经转型了。有时间看看我的帖子，帮我看看。

njutleeUID: 2179673

魏玛宝贝，光看了你的提纲，我就已经吐血啦（当然我的文章也好不到哪去啦：），不过事后参考了一些提纲和范文），我把我目前总结的提纲给你参考下：
① study的样本太特殊，不具代表性。只调查了French women in their eighties who were nursing-home residents，没有普遍性（靠，一个男的已没有，还都是法国的），甚至没有提供具体的调查人数、调查前的身体状况等信息。

② 未排除他因。其他原因：a light weightlifting program，三年前这批样本的健康状况是否就好于普通人，这次调查活动是否是他们在行为上更加的小心。文中假设的是，吃药可以防止骨密度下降，因此可以减少股骨折。然而是否发生骨折还跟保养等因素有关，不仅仅是生理上的。总之没有直接的证据证明VD和钙能够counteract the vulnerability caused by the bone mass decrease.
③ 急于概括。由hip fractures、women推广到bone fractures、all people 缺乏支持。不一定适合于男性，不一定可以降低所有的骨折发生率。

[ 本帖最后由 njutlee 于 2006-6-3 16:09 编辑 ]

渡渡鸟UID: 145880

In this argument, the author draws a conclusion-- to take twice the recommended dose of  vitamin D and calcium daily is the best way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life--from a recent study that has followed a group of French women in their eighties who were nursing-home residents for three years. It seems to be a short step from believing that this claim does make sense, however, a further consideration tells me（感觉能不用me, I最好，显得客观一些） that the samples of the study are too selective to be sufficient to support the assertion.
First of all, the senior the group of French women living in nursing-home is special enough to make the result of the study meaningless. Because it seems to us very important to know wether(wether…你查下这个啥意思？。。。红宝里倒是有bellwether) it is because the given vitamin D and calcium prevent them from fractures ,or wether some other factors,such as nationality,sex,living conditions,are the causes.It is wildly known that people in France,the most romantic country in the world,live a much higher quaulity life than people in other conties,espacially those in the rural areas of the third world ones. Maybe it’s just the linving level rather than the vitamin D and calcium that cause the differnent rate of hip fractures between the them（between the them？？啥意思？要用也该用among撒）. Living conditions also should be considered. For the women metioned above live in a nuring-home,most people would share a beliefe that those women are less likely to hurt themselves and get fractures even without the given vitamin D and calcium.Furthermore,granted that vitamin D and calcium in certain amounts are benificial to women ,what about man? The argument says nothing about their effect on men, so it therefore cannot make the recommendation that all people should take vitamin D and calcium. Meanwhlie,the study leaves other bodyparts except hip out of consideration,that largely weaken the validity of its result.
What if consider some important terminology in the argument? （估计是受新东方毒害太深了。。。）For example,what does “a light weightlifting program” mean?Dose it mean a designed activity to make the bone stronger?Or does it mean just a causal walk under the sunshine ? And what does “lower rate of hip fractures”mean?Does it mean the vitamin D and calcium-taking women will still probably suffer fractures?Or that mean they absolutely will not have factures? The problem is that the key term in the argument are too vague to be meaningful.（嘿嘿，感觉这段哪里见过撒。。。。。。）Last but not the least,the arguer fails to justify his advice is the best choice.All along the study, twice vitamin D and calcium are used together.Yet,it may be wrong to jump to any cause-and-effect conclusions.The impact of vitamin D on the calcium obsording is no less cloudy than the calcium’s impact on fractures.We need further experients which use those two in other different proportions to find the best macth..
To sum up,the argument is not cogent bacause it relies on a meaningless study as noted earlier.The author has to rule out other possible factors to justify his conclusion.

发现你两句之间不用空格。。。粘到word里一片红。。。这个毛病一定要改。。。有的地方还先用符号后空格。。。真是服了你了。。。你写完后肯定没放到word里改。。。拼写错误平常一定要纠正。。。
Lee 的提纲不错：）值得参考下。。。

njutleeUID: 2179673

老魏，你跑哪去了？

魏玛竹林UID: 2201594

In this argument, the author draws a conclusion-- to take twice the recommended dose of  vitamin D and calcium daily is the best way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life--from a recent study that has followed a group of French women in their eighties who were nursing-home residents for three years. It seems to be a short step from believing that this claim does make sense, however, a further consideration tells me（感觉能不用me, I最好，显得客观一些 XDF就是这么说的~~我也这么改别人的了~~但是范文里面也这么用~~都没个标准 郁闷） that the samples of the study are too selective to be sufficient to support the assertion.
First of all, the senior the group of French women living in nursing-home is special enough to make the result of the study meaningless. Because it seems to us very important to know wether(wether…你查下这个啥意思？。。。:L a castrated male sheep or goat 我错了~~红宝里倒是有bellwether) it is because the given vitamin D and calcium prevent them from fractures ,or wether some other factors,such as nationality,sex,living conditions,are the causes.It is wildly known that people in France,the most romantic country in the world,live a much higher quaulity life than people in other conties,espacially those in the rural areas of the third world ones. Maybe it’s just the linving level rather than the vitamin D and calcium that cause the differnent rate of hip fractures between the them（between the them？？啥意思？要用也该用among撒 嘿嘿本来想写the two groups 后来改成them “打误“了~）. Living conditions also should be considered. For the women metioned above live in a nuring-home,most people would share a beliefe that those women are less likely to hurt themselves and get fractures even without the given vitamin D and calcium.Furthermore,granted that vitamin D and calcium in certain amounts are benificial to women ,what about man? The argument says nothing about their effect on men, so it therefore cannot make the recommendation that all people should take vitamin D and calcium. Meanwhlie,the study leaves other bodyparts except hip out of consideration,that largely weaken the validity of its result.
What if consider some important terminology in the argument? （估计是受新东方毒害太深了。。。没有啊xdf貌似不推崇这种语气）For example,what does “a light weightlifting program” mean?Dose it mean a designed activity to make the bone stronger?Or does it mean just a causal walk under the sunshine ? And what does “lower rate of hip fractures”mean?Does it mean the vitamin D and calcium-taking women will still probably suffer fractures?Or that mean they absolutely will not have factures? The problem is that the key term in the argument are too vague to be meaningful.（嘿嘿，感觉这段哪里见过撒。。。。。。:victory:哈哈 组长慧眼 是有出处的~~错误类型相同 就直接换换主题用过来了）Last but not the least,the arguer fails to justify his advice is the best choice.All along the study, twice vitamin D and calcium are used together.Yet,it may be wrong to jump to any cause-and-effect conclusions.The impact of vitamin D on the calcium obsording is no less cloudy than the calcium’s impact on fractures.We need further experients which use those two in other different proportions to find the best macth..
To sum up,the argument is not cogent bacause it relies on a meaningless study as noted earlier.The author has to rule out other possible factors to justify his conclusion.

发现你两句之间不用空格。。。粘到word里一片红。。。这个毛病一定要改。。。啊 我从来没注意过这也算问题啊 有的地方还先用符号后空格。。。？真是服了你了。。。你写完后肯定没放到word里改。。。拼写错误平常一定要纠正。。。
:LLee 的提纲不错：）值得参考下。。。