argument 166 飞越dreams小组第3次作业

gre_killer_wuUID: 2451830

argument 166 飞越dreams小组第3次作业 by gre_killer_wu

Argument 166
The following appeared in a local newspaper.
"People should not be misled by the advertising competition between Coldex and Cold-Away, both popular over-the-counter cold medications that anyone can purchase without a doctor's prescription. Each brand is accusing the other of causing some well-known, unwanted side effect: Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure and Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness. But the choice should be clear for most health-conscious people: Cold-Away has been on the market for much longer and is used by more hospitals than is Coldex. Clearly, Cold-Away is more effective."

字数：378      时间：50分钟

In this article, the author claims that Cold-Away is more effective in the cold treatment than Coldex because of its much longer existence on the market and much more usage in hospitals. The argument is somewhat reasonable at the first glance. Nevertheless, more circumspect scrutiny to the author's line of reasoning reveals the arguer commits several logical fallacies, which render the argument unpersuasive.

To begin with, the author may have distorted the moderate advertising activity of the two brands as a malignant advertising competition between them. It is entirely possible that the two brands are just declaring some limits in the usage of their medicines, that is, people in high blood pressure should not take Coldex, and those who want to keep alert should avoid the usage of Cold-Away.

Secondarily, the author has not explained “effective” sufficiently. Common sense tells me that a medicine may display completely different effectiveness on different persons. As is known to all, penicillin cures some diseases for some people, and causes allergy on some other patients. So do many medicines. What is the exact meaning of “effective” here mentioned by the author? Is it the effectiveness on everybody, or just a higher effectiveness rate among all the people? The author gives no further explanation.

Even considering that “effective” here means a much higher effectiveness rate among people, the author wrongly equals the longer existence on the market to the better effectiveness. However, the longer existence on the market does not necessarily lead to the better effectiveness. And the more usage in hospitals may just caused by the earlier appearance on the market. It is entirely possible that there is just a cold medicine brand on the market when these hospitals are founded, and these hospitals had no second choice. And even after the appearance of second brand on the market, they do not change their official choice unless a special reason. If so, the author’s argument might be just misleading.


Taken together, fallacies mentioned above make the argument groundless and unreasonable. To bolster the conclusion, the author needs to provide more details about the two brands’ advertisement, and a reliable statistical record about the effectiveness of the two medicines. And the specifications why Cold-Away is used in more hospitals will also be useful.

syjsss213UID: 2415289

In this article, the author claims that Cold-Away is more effective in the cold treatment than Coldex because of its much longer existence on the market and much more usage in hospitals. The argument is somewhat reasonable at the first glance. Nevertheless, more circumspect scrutiny to the author's line of reasoning reveals the arguer commits several logical fallacies, which render the argument unpersuasive.

To begin with, the author may have distorted the moderate advertising activity of the two brands as a malignant advertising competition between them. It is entirely possible that the two brands are just declaring some limits in the usage of their medicines, that is, people in high blood pressure should not take Coldex, and those who want to keep alert should avoid the usage of Cold-Away.（这段质疑作者证据写的比较好，不过感觉更应该反驳作者的隐含前提：观众关注这场争论）

Secondarily, the author has not explained “effective” sufficiently. Common sense tells me that a medicine may display completely different effectiveness on different persons. As is known to all, penicillin cures some diseases for some people, and causes allergy on some other patients. So do many medicines. What is the exact meaning of “effective” here mentioned by the author? Is it the effectiveness on everybody, or just a higher effectiveness rate among all the people? The author gives no further explanation.（感觉青霉素这个例子举的不是特别准，你要论证的是有效性不明晰，过敏还是属于side-effect，应该加一句质疑作者评判有效性是否取决于side-effect）

Even considering that “effective” here means a much higher effectiveness rate among people, the author wrongly equates the longer existence on the market to the better effectiveness. （However, the longer existence on the market does not necessarily lead to the better effectiveness）这句话有些重复. And the more usage in hospitals may just caused by the earlier appearance on the market. It is entirely possible that there is just a cold medicine brand on the market when these hospitals are founded, and these hospitals had no second choice. And even after the appearance of second brand on the market, they do not change their official choice unless a special reason. If so, the author’s argument might be just misleading.（这段的一个假设很好）

Taken together, fallacies mentioned above make the argument groundless and unreasonable. To bolster the conclusion, the author needs to provide more details about the two brands’ advertisement, and a believable statistical record about the effectiveness of the two medicines. And the specifications why Cold-Away is used in more hospitals will also be useful.