argument57 帮我看看文章逻辑,谢谢....

阿择菜UID: 2110339

Argument57  
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分2秒     396words
从2005年7月12日17时46分到2005年7月12日18时06分
------题目------
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------

This argument concludes that using the Zorba could prevent recurrent, even the fist time. The argument provides the study on some  first-time ulcer patients. Although the evidences are credible on the surface, closer examination reveals several hidden logical problems in his/her reasoning.

The arguer provides the study on some patients, through the experimental results, draw an incredible conclusion that the Zorba is effective in preventing recurrent ulcers. We might ask: Where and when did the study? Are the samples representative or random? Are the samples too large? How did the arguer inferring the population from samples? Perhaps the arguer make a survey only for several people, which do not represent the whole situation. Or perhaps the arguer infers the population from the samples reckless, rather than use the scientific ways. Hence, the study made by the arguer is rather questionable before the arguer provides the further details.

Moreover, the arguer only makes the study on the first time ulcer patients. The data fails to reveal the whole ulcer patients. We don not know the real situation of those recurrent patients Perhaps once the people suffer an ulcer, they have to pay attention to this on diet and sleep, in order to avoid the recurrent. In addition, the arguer gives the details that 25%  people of the study do not get new ulcer, but it fails to prove the reality that these people is recurrent on original ulcer.  Perhaps those who take Zorba do not get new ulcer, but the rate of getting origin ulcer may  increase. Accordingly, preventing the ulcer only with Zorba, it is insufficient to show the Zorba is effective for recurrent.

Last but not the least, even if Zorba is effective on the ulcer, the arguer magnified the effects of Zorba. The arguer draw a false conclusion that many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well. He/she did not make the study on these people, then we dot not know whether the effects have influence on the first time ulcer. Perhaps Zorba have only effective on the recurrent ulcer patients. Even if the people use the Zorba, they maybe get the ulcer, especially without  caring  for their diet and health. Therefore, the arguer draws this conclusion hastily.

In sum, the argument is unfounded and insufficient on conclusion from study above. The arguer should provide more detailed study and make whole survey on ulcer.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-12 at 22:44 ]

阿择菜UID: 2110339

up

阿择菜UID: 2110339

up again

greenfruitUID: 2112472

This argument concludes that using the Zorba could prevent recurrent, even the fist time. The argument provides the study on some  first-time ulcer patients. Although the evidences are credible on the surface, closer examination reveals several hidden logical problems in his/her reasoning.

The arguer provides the study on some patients, through the experimental results, draw an incredible conclusion that the Zorba is effective in preventing recurrent ulcers. We might ask: Where and when did the study? Are the samples representative or random? Are the samples too large? How did the arguer inferring the population from samples? （建议问句改为陈述句）Perhaps the arguer make a survey only for several people, which do not represent the whole situation. Or perhaps the arguer infers the population from the samples reckless, rather than use the scientific ways. Hence, the study made by the arguer is rather questionable before the arguer provides the further details.

Moreover, the arguer only makes the study on the first time ulcer patients. The data fails to reveal the whole ulcer patients. We don not know the real situation of those recurrent patients Perhaps once the people suffer an ulcer, they have to pay attention to this on diet and sleep, in order to avoid the recurrent. （不服Z的那组就不会注意么？）In addition, the arguer gives the details that 25%  people of the study do not get new ulcer, but it fails to prove the reality that these people is recurrent on original ulcer. （可以这样理解吗？不会get new ulcer就是不复发吧？）Perhaps those who take Zorba do not get new ulcer, but the rate of getting origin ulcer may  increase. Accordingly, preventing the ulcer only with Zorba, it is insufficient to show the Zorba is effective for recurrent.

Last but not the least, even if Zorba is effective on the ulcer, the arguer magnified the effects of Zorba. The arguer draw a false conclusion that many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well. He/she did not make the study on these people, then we dot not know whether the effects have influence on the first time ulcer. Perhaps Zorba have only effective on the recurrent ulcer patients. Even if the people use the Zorba, they maybe get the ulcer, especially without  caring  for their diet and health. Therefore, the arguer draws this conclusion hastily.（句子有点零碎，不少重复）

In sum, the argument is unfounded and insufficient on conclusion from study above. The arguer should provide more detailed study and make whole survey on ulcer.
第二段的论证好像有点问题，三段的衔接感觉不是很紧，尤其是首句，没有起到统领的作用，也许可以在这里下点功夫。
我看到题目想到的是：
1　实验的取样数目和患者的代表性不明
2        即使取样没问题，也许是他因造成了两组的差别
3        Z就算有作用，不一定对每一次也有效
有说得不对的，包涵：）