argument57

hlzhang431UID: 2297648

ARGUMENT57- The following appeared in a newsletter on nutrition and health.

"Althoughthe multimineral Zorba pill was designed as a simple dietary supplement, astudy of first-time ulcer patients who took Zorba suggests that Zorba actuallyhelps prevent ulcers. The study showed that only 25 percent of those ulcerpatients who took Zorba under a doctor's direction developed new ulcers,compared to a 75 percent recurrence rate among ulcer patients who did not takeZorba. Clearly, then, Zorba will be highly effective in preventing recurrentulcers and if health experts inform the general public of this fact, manyfirst-time ulcers can be prevented as well."

Basedon what might be called an unwarranted study, the author of this argumentconcludes that Zorba will be quite effective in preventing recurrent ulcers andwhat is more, many first-time ulcers can be prevented if the general public areinformed of this fact by health experts. Close scrutiny of his or her inferencereveals that it suffers from many illogical fallacies and thus is unconvincing.

Thethreshold problem with this argument is that the study methodology that thearguer used seems to be problematic in the following respects: Firstly, we arenot informed whether the study only lasted longer enough to justify itsresults. If it only lasted for about 10 or 20 years, then its results mightseem to be dubious for though 75 percent of those ulcer patients who took Zorbaunder a doctor's direction did not develop new ulcers during this period, itdoes not necessarily mean that they will not suffer from ulcer in their laterlives. Secondly, we were not informed if the participants only stand for asmall portion of the whole or they are from the city region. If that were thecase, then the results might seem unbelievable for the simple reason that atiny number of people or a regional population might not represent the wholepublic.

Anotherflaw that weakens the argument is that the author unfairly equates therecurrence of ulcer with the occurrence of first-time ulcers. Obviously, thetwo are quite different from each other, with the former referring to peoplewho have previously suffered from ulcer earlier in their lives while the laterto people who are not. Consequently, even if Zorba is extremely effective inpreventing recurrent ulcers, it does not necessarily mean that it will alsoplay an effective roll in preventing many first-time ulcers.

Finally,the author does not give a full consideration of this matter. Perhaps thoughZorba does help to prevent ulcer, the author ignores the possibility that itmight also bring many side effects at the same time, which may cause more painthan ulcer does. Or perhaps there might be other possible medicines which mayeffectively prevent ulcer without any side effects.                        
                                   
Ina word, the arguer's inference lacks of credibility as it stands. He or she hasoverlooked or chosen to ignore many aspects of his or her conclusion. To bettersubstantiate it, more evidence should be provided to justify the study and eliminatethe above-mentioned possibilities.

(2003-6-1822:53:32)

[ 本帖最后由 hlzhang431 于 2007-6-22 19:41 编辑 ]

coraoneUID: 2233021

收下了，改好了给你发上来哈，期末考试中

coraoneUID: 2233021

Basedon what might be called an unwarranted study, the author of this argumentconcludes that Zorba will be quite effective in preventing recurrent ulcers andwhat is more, many first-time ulcers can be prevented if the general public areinformed of this fact by health experts. Close scrutiny of his or her inferencereveals that it suffers from many illogical fallacies and thus is unconvincing.

Thethreshold problem with this argument is that the study methodology that thearguer used seems to be problematic in the following respects: Firstly, we arenot informed whether the study only lasted longer enough to justify itsresults. If it only lasted for about 10 or 20 years, （不错，可以具体说明）then its results mightseem to be dubious for though 75 percent of those ulcer patients who took Zorbaunder a doctor's direction did not develop new ulcers during this period, itdoes not necessarily mean that they will not suffer from ulcer in their laterlives. Secondly, we were not informed if the participants only stand for asmall portion of the whole or they are from the city region. If that were thecase, then the results might seem unbelievable for the simple reason that atiny number of people or a regional population might not represent the wholepublic.(SURVEY是攻击的不错了，但是我觉得没必要用一个段落的篇幅来攻击survey)

Anotherflaw that weakens the argument is that the author unfairly equates therecurrence of ulcer with the occurrence of first-time ulcers. Obviously, thetwo are quite different from each other, with the former referring to peoplewho have previously suffered from ulcer earlier in their lives while the laterto people who are not. Consequently, even if Zorba is extremely effective inpreventing recurrent ulcers, it does not necessarily mean that it will alsoplay an effective roll in preventing many first-time ulcers.

Finally,the author does not give a full consideration of this matter. （这个主题句说的太笼统了，不行）Perhaps thoughZorba does help to prevent ulcer, the author ignores the possibility that itmight also bring many side effects at the same time, which may cause more painthan ulcer does. Or perhaps there might be other possible medicines which mayeffectively prevent ulcer without any side effects.                        
                                   
Ina word, the arguer's inference lacks of credibility as it stands. He or she hasoverlooked or chosen to ignore many aspects of his or her conclusion. To bettersubstantiate it, more evidence should be provided to justify the study and eliminatethe above-mentioned possibilities.

你的ARUMENT,语言有了，思路有了，但是问题是，论证的深入性不够，除开一个SURVEY，接着就是说复发和第一次得ulcer，然后说了两个perhaps，逻辑性不是很强，注意体会。
有潜力，加油！
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-690951-1-1.html有空也帮我看看我的A57，我们交流一下！
coraone