argument 57 第8次作业 <永不言弃小组> by zhouding3000

zhouding3000UID: 2400953

In this argument, the speaker asserts that the Zorba is a effective medicine for the preclude of ulcers. To strengthen his conclusion, the speaker cites that only 25% percent with Zorba compared to 75% without that grants Zorba a effective role as a preventor. And then the speaker recommends that this medicine could be used as a remedy for the first-time ulcer patients. Although this conclusion seems reasonable, by deep analysis, the speaker certainly commits several logical fallacies that undermine the conclusion.

In the first place, the speaker fails to convince us that this medicine surely has the ability to prevent ulcer. It is entirely possible that the lower recurrence might not depend on this medicine. Maybe the first group is treated with other medicines. The doctors who direct the patients in that group might prescribe other pills to them and chances are high that these pills are the essential reason to prevent the ulcers.

Moreover, there is no guarantee showing that the patients have ulcers of the same level. The first group might have the lowest level and can be treated effectively and efficiently with Zorba. However, considering the fact that the Zorba is no more than a simple dietary supplement, whether or not this medicine is also effective to those patients who have more acute ulcer is open to doubt. Unless the speaker could supply that the clinical conditions of all the patients are at same level, it is ludicrous to draw a conclusion that the medicine could apply to all levels.

Furthermore, the speaker commits a hasty generalization. Even assuming that Zorba could prevent the recurrence of ulcers, it is not responsible to conclude that it could prevent the first-time ulcers. It is universally acknowledged that after the human body is infected with a kind of virus, the antibody would be produced and resist the same kind’s re-invasion. And this might also apply to the virus of ulcers. It is reasonable to consider about a condition that the medicine other than the antibody could not prevent the re-invasion. Or only along with the antibody could Zorba work. In this manner, Zorba might not play an essential role in the preclusion of ulcers for the first time.

Finally, no evidence shows that the medicine would not bring any side-effects. The speaker overstates the positive side of the medicine and meanwhile neglects the latent negative sides of this medicine. Although it may prevent the recurrence efficiently, other parts of human body might be influenced. Unless the speaker provides that this medicine does not have any side-effects could the speaker extend it widely for clinical treatment.
In sum, due to the aforementioned points, the speaker’s conclusion is still worth consulting. To tamp his conclusion, the speaker should provide a certificate of non-side effect, and in his clinical experiments, it is necessary to show evidence that the patients are at the same conditions, adding that none other influencing medicines join the treatment.

firhadayUID: 2287086

大致的看了一下,觉得你的问题在于A的分析不够,比如你的第一个错误只是举了一个反例,而且你举的范例你没有对它进行论证,个人建议你仔细研究下范文,以及论坛上以前高分同学的作品!