Argument57 【SWEETBOX小组】第6次作业

jiangyue011UID: 2340595

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

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

正文:

The conclusion endorsed in this argument is that Zorba is a highly effective medicine in preventing both first-time and recurrent ulcers. Based mainly on a study and several other reasons, the argument seems at first glance well stated. Nevertheless, careful examination renders the ineffectiveness of it.

First of all, the arguer fails to confirm us the scientific reliability of the study. There is no indication of the physical and mental conditions of the two groups of patients, which may differ conspicuously among different individuals. For example, if the group that took Zorba is consisted with strong men like athletes while the other is made up of women or old people, then the result of the study is unconvincing as it stands. Further, if the ulcers of patients taking Zorba are far more slight compared to the other group, the results will give us little credibility. In addition, the argument lacks forceful evidence by the fact that the group was directed by a professional doctor, who may cure the patients scientifically and effectively with his or her experience. Thus, the patients could receive a myriad of useful suggestions in healing such as how to keep mental order and release tension, a healthy diet that would be beneficial to the treatment and so on.

Even if the study is scientifically acceptable, the arguer could not overstate the effectiveness of Zorba in treating first-time ulcers with out any solid guarantees. The arguer gives little, if any information about the time of the treatment, side effects of the pill. It is entirely possible Zorba is time-consuming in treating ulcers compared to other pills. It is also possible that Zorba is only effective in some certain groups. For example, it may be useful for strong men while not effective for children, pregnant women or old people because the body conditions are not so robust. Also, it is very likely that Zorba has a lot of side effects that limit the applicability of it. In addition, first-time ulcers may have different mechanisms than the recurrent ones. They may be mainly caused by the physical damages and irritations to the tissues, eating and drinking beyond the burden of an individual, for example, would be a qualified cause. The recurrent ulcers, may be mainly caused by indirect stimulations like unnecessary worriment and concurrency of other diseases. Either scenario, if true, would undermine the effectiveness of Zorba in treating first-time ulcers although it is testified effective in lowering the recurrence rate.

Finally, even if we adopt the fact that Zorba is effective both in treating first-time and recurrent ulcers, before the experts recommend this pill to the public, a lot of alternative variables should be concerned. The price compared to other pills would be a factor that undermines the applicability of the pill. Neither do we know the feasibility of combing it to other food and the reaction of the public toward purchasing such food simply because it is only a supplement.

In conclusion, the arguer does not succeed in providing a well reasoned argument. If the problems above are concerned, the argument would be more convincing.