argument168

cwztyo__UID: 2159050

168
提纲:
1  在法国特护病房的80岁的妇人的调查过于局限,没有普遍性
2  体重提升计划起了做用还是维他命和钙片,可能由于三年中其他一些因素
3  在三年后作用了, 那在以后的岁月是否反弹并未说明

   In this argument, the arguer uphold this point that the best way to reduce the risk of fracture in later life is to take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily. To substantiate this position, the arguer infers to some investigate about the costomers of vitamin D and calcium daily who are french women living in nursing-home in their eighties. The investigate almost lasts three years and the result of the trial is the evidence of his point.Neverthless,the mayor's argument is problematic in several respects as following, rendering theargument unconvincing as it stands.

     In th first place, according to the standard report of investigate, the sample in the three-year study is not very respresentative. It is quitely limited that a group of french women as nursing-home residents  indicates something. Perhaps another group of  the old men in England who get  as three times as dose of the recommended vitamin D and calcium daily, don't get same effection after three years age due to different kinds of enviroment of their health ,habits of life,or constructions of having dinner.Therefore, not until does the arguer offers more entire and common samples , I won't believe his relevant conclusion .

  Secondly, the arguer totally neglets another factor- weightlifting program,done in the process of invetigate at the same time. Maybe the lower rate of hip fracture  entirely results from the light weightlifting program which helps the french women improve the qulity of their bone. or two factors including the program and pillars both work out in this field of reducing bone fracture. Meanwhile, other aspects that do not attract people's attention ,such as quality of fresh air and running water,regular and healthy habits of life and other sort of food and so on ,but are really good for improving bone fracture,finally are ignored by the arguer. So, as far as i am concerned, the author lacks careful consideration and is pretty arbitrary.

  Thirdly, even if it is  vitamin D and calcium  that work out during three years,the arguer cannot promise that the effetion of the pillars will continue in future. Perhaps in constract, in the later years, vitamin D and calcium would play a catalyst of bone fractures.Perhaps except reducing the risk of fratures in later life , vitamin D and calcium are bad for other part of body,such like heart and brain and so on.If the auguer doesn't rule out possible negative respects of  vitamin D and calcium ,he cannot get his conclusion.

   To sum up, the arguer's argument is unconvincing. To bolster it  he must provide clear evidences that the french women indeed have respentativeness, the vitamin D and calcium are the only or the main factor in reducing bone fractures, and the effection of these pillars will last and have no negative respects.