0910AW 同主题写作第七期 ARGUMENT167 by飘飘zly

飘飘zlyUID: 2200552

Argument 167

A folk remedy* for insomnia, the scent in lavender flowers, has now been proved effective. In a recent study, 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia slept each night for three weeks on lavender-scented pillows in a controlled room where their sleep was monitored. During the first week, volunteers continued to take their usual sleeping medication. They slept soundly but wakened feeling tired. During the second week, the volunteers discontinued their medication. As a result, they slept less soundly than the previous week and felt even more tired. During the third week, the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than in the previous two weeks. This shows that over a short period of time lavender cures insomnia.

*A folk remedy is usually a plant-based form of treatment common to traditional forms of medicine, ones that developed before the advent of modern medical services and technology.

In the argument, the statement points out that lavender can cure insomnia as a folk remedy. The arguer takes a contrast experiment on 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia in three weeks. Through the observation of subjects every week, it cannot substantiate the expected results, and the experiment process suffers from several flaws.

First of all, it is an unwarranted assumption that, through the experiment in the first two weeks, the arguer contributes sound sleeping of the second week to lavender pillows. The experiment in these two weeks, added a factor of sleeping medication, can unfairly illustrate whether lavender or sleeping medication make main function for sleeping well. Through the reflection of subjects in this short time, it seems more potentially that the sleeping medication make patients sleep soundly, not lavender. As the similar experiment process, the arguer should provide the evidence of comparison of subjects between on lavender pillow and on the usual one. Without such evidence, the arguer cannot support the statement that lavender cures insomnia.

The experiment, the third week without clear conditions, fails to substantiate that the better sleep of subjects depends on the lavender pillow. Perhaps, subjects, in third week, take their usual sleeping medication before going to sleep; perhaps, subjects in this week feel wornout and sleep soundly; Perhaps, even if subjects in the third weeks slept longer and more soundly than in the previous weeks, the sleep-performance is not also so well as the average person. Without considering and ruling out these possibilities, it is fallacious that lavender could cure insomnia.

Even if the foregoing factor can be substantiate, the arguer ignores the clear definition of insomnia. If insomnia is defined as not falling asleep in the night, the response of subjects in experiment as how sleep soundly, feel tired, has no correlation with whether volunteers suffer from insomnia. The volunteers of experiment may be not insomnia patients, under a definition of insomnia. The result of the experiment seems to be meanless. In short, it is unclear definition of insomnia that leads to make a fallacy assess the argument.

The arguer also ignores that other factor make effects on the experiment. Insomnia as a chronic patience, the arguer cannot take a cause of insomnia into account. It, perhaps, results from job stress, spiritual factors, physical factors. It is unsound conclusion that only by sleeping lavender pillow could not solve a sleeping problem and cure insomnia.

To sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the statement, the arguer should take a clear definition of insomnia. Under a assess standard, making a correct experiment has the only one different factor of volunteers, such as sleep with lavender pillow and usual pillow. Arguer would have to demonstrate that volunteers sleep soundly with lavender pillow ruling out the sleeping medication factor. If the argument had include the given factors discussed above, it would been more logical to accept.

brisk1111UID: 2571604

In this argument, the president draws a conclusion that Wheat-O(W-O), new version product, should make more profit for the company and improve their customers' health. To support the conclusion, he make a contrast between ate soybeans subjects and ate no soy ones to indicate that the former had lower cholesterol. And he points out that the new product, W-O, could increase sales by the potential customers concerned about their health. A careful scrutiny of this argument could reveal several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, it is the unwarranted assumption that the soybeans makes subjects low cholesterol by contrast between subjects ate soybeans at least 5 times per week and no ate soy product ones. In this contrast, the subjects who ate soybeans maybe did not only make breakfast with soybeans, impossibly with other food, such as cheese, milk, apple and so on. These food maybe lead to significantly lower cholesterol level, comparing to subjects who ate no such food above.(这个范例举得有些牵强，不可能正好那些吃豆子的人吃了那些食物，而没吃豆子的人都没吃，而且举得食物也是非常常见的食物，没有说服力) In the scientific method, the author should point out which elements of soybean result in the low cholesterol level. It is the way that the argument should be sound to support the conclusion.

Furthermore, the president fails to substantiate that the new version W-O with soy protein is healthy to customers. Even if soybeans could decrease the cholesterol level, he cannot equate the soybeans to soy protein（两个换个位子吧，因为是强调的后者不可以等同于前者）, which are different from many factors. It is, in fact, entirely possible that soy protein contains high cholesterol in the new product, which is detrimental to their customers. Because the element of soybeans that make lower cholesterol is not included in soy protein, and maybe the soy protein has the new element with high cholesterol, or other unhealthy elements by fortifying W-O with soy protein.（感觉飘飘是不是没有搞清楚soy protein大豆蛋白与soybeans大豆之间的关系啊，大豆蛋白本身就只是一种成分，你可以说不是他的作用导致的低的胆固醇但不能说他还含有什么别的成分可以使胆固醇提高） Without rule out these possibilities, it is unfound to point out that W-O should improve customers’ health.

Finally, even if the memo's author could substantiate the foregoing assumption, there is no evidence that the new product W-O could increase the company profit. The president expects that their company's new version W-O was appealed by additional consumers(感觉这被动关系有问题，但是不敢确定) who pay the attentions to（pay attention to） their health. The president make a unwarranted assumption that the consumers who are cared about their health should eager to buy the new products(W-O).It is entirely possible that these consumers are only concerned about the new products, or even draw more attentions whether the new W-O can be health to them ,and then, deciding whether to buy. It is no suggestion that the consumers can buy the new product of the company. Therefore, it is generally unsound that this new version of W-O should improve company profit according to the memo.这一段就句子我读的有些纠结，觉得情态动词HE我平时的用法和表达的感情有些出入，我也不敢妄自的改，我感觉有问题的都标出来了，还有就是不知道version在这怎么用，而你好像都用了，文章中version后都加了OF)
To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster the conclusion that（不要） the new W-O should improve the consumers' health, (和下面重复)the president should provide the不要 reliable evidence such as the customers can be more health by eating the new product. Or he should provide the list of the elements of the new product to substantiate that it is health. In addition, it is increasing the profit of the new W-O that was weaken by the fact that appealing to the consumers concerning about health.看不通 The president should provide the marketing survey of the potential consumers and of the sell performance which（to） makes the argument unconvincing.（convincing）


这次审题和上次有些进步但还是有些欠缺，不知道有没有看中文的解释，文章的举例不够有说服力，句子也似乎不是很通（当然可能是我的水平有限），具体的都写在上面了，希望有些用。

brisk1111UID: 2571604

不好意思，发错地方了。待会再发

brisk1111UID: 2571604

In the argument, the statement points out that lavender can cure insomnia as a folk remedy. The arguer takes a contrast experiment on 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia in three weeks. Through the observation of subjects every week, it cannot substantiate the expected results, and the experiment process suffers from several flaws.


First of all, it is an unwarranted assumption that, through the experiment in the first two weeks, the arguer contributes sound sleeping of the second week to lavender pillows.（又审题错误，文章说第二次睡眠时比第一次差的） The experiment in these two weeks, added a factor of sleeping medication（审题错误，第二次没有用药）, can unfairly illustrate whether lavender or sleeping medication make main function for sleeping well. Through the reflection of subjects in this short time, it seems more potentially that the sleeping medication make patients sleep soundly, not lavender. As the similar experiment process, the arguer should provide the evidence of comparison of subjects between on（using） lavender pillow and on the usual one. Without such evidence, the arguer cannot support the statement that lavender cures insomnia.


The experiment, the third week without clear conditions, fails to substantiate that the better sleep of subjects depends on the lavender pillow. Perhaps, subjects, in third week, take their usual sleeping medication before going to sleep（这个假设不成立，他做这个实验肯定是不会犯这种低级错误的，肯定是只用枕头的，但是你可以说他做了什么特殊的运动，或者是吃了特别的食物什么的，但是一定不能使药）; perhaps, subjects in this week feel worn out and sleep soundly; Perhaps, even if subjects in the third weeks slept longer and more soundly than in the previous weeks,[color=Red] the sleep-performance is not also so well as the average person.(就算不如一般的人按照你的说法也照样是证明有用的) Without considering and ruling out these possibilities, it is fallacious that lavender could cure insomnia.


Even if the foregoing factor can be substantiate, the arguer ignores the clear definition of insomnia. If insomnia is defined as not falling asleep in the night, the response of subjects in experiment as how sleep soundly, feel tired, has no correlation with whether volunteers suffer from insomnia. The volunteers of experiment may be not insomnia patients, under a definition of insomnia. The result of the experiment seems to be meanless（根本没有这个单词，你自己造的吧，可以用make no sense）. In short, it is unclear definition of insomnia that leads to make a fallacy assess the argument.（我不知道怎么评价这一段，我从没想过从定义去攻击，也只见过一次，我总觉得这样做牵强，这段我意见保留）

The arguer also ignores that other factor make effects on the experiment. Insomnia as a chronic patience（什么意思）, the arguer cannot（fails to） take a （the）cause of insomnia into account. It, perhaps, results from job stress, spiritual factors, physical factors. It is unsound conclusion that only by sleeping lavender pillow could not（意思反了）solve a sleeping problem and cure insomnia.


To sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the statement, the arguer should take a clear definition of insomnia. Under a assess standard, making a correct experiment has the only one different factor of volunteers, such as sleep with lavender pillow and usual pillow. Arguer would have to demonstrate that volunteers sleep soundly with lavender pillow ruling out the sleeping medication factor. If the argument had （不要）include the given factors discussed above, it would been （be）more logical to accept.

审题审题，第三次了！！！！

飘飘zlyUID: 2200552

审题问题是严重~~