第一篇argument，感觉还行！

Adolph.hu.85UID: 2964075

WORDS: 514

TIME: Unlimited

DATE: 2011-3-1 20:29:43

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. Because there are some striking errs: first, we are known from above research that the 28 men and 20 women are administered the same dosage of kappa opioids without any information about the 48 persons; second, as we know from the report that the easing of pain lasted considerably longer in women than in men, it is unsuitable that women should be prescribed with kappa opioids whenever pain medication is required; third, the participants of this survey are so few that the result has no representation; forth, even though the report is true, there is still no need to reevaluate the effects of all medications. The careful analyses are shown below.
Now, let's analyze the first point. From above argument, we can only get the information about attendant that 28 men and 20 women tried the same dosage of kappa opioids when they were having their wisdom teeth extracted, and that' all. Obviously, the researchers are failing to consider other possible factors, such factors may include the fact that men attended the research are much younger than women, so they can stomach less pains than women; or that the female candidate have a heavier weight than the male, because the lighter will feel more pain than one with heavier weight at the same condition that they are prescribed the same dosage of medicine due to the by-effect of medicine. In addition, the same health condition should be insured when they are invested in a research.
In the second place, we are presented that the time women feel pain is considerably longer than men, while the research still suggest to prescribing kappa opioids to women whenever pain medication is required. Is this ridiculous to you? I don't think it is not a better choose to use painkiller with both less pain and shorter time for women.

In fact, a study with only 48 participants is unreliable, especially on medicine. As we all know, medical is such a precise and meticulous subject that even little carelessness is not allowed, otherwise, none dare to imagine the aftermath, for little mistake would kill someone. And it's a common sense that there are great deal of takers for each kind of medicine, the situation is the same. Accordingly, each medicine should be tried at least by thousands of people who need also be observed a period of time before input into use.
Finally, let's make the assumption that the report is true, is there need to reevaluate the effects of all medications on men versus women? The answer is absolutely no, for there are lots of medicines only for female or male.
Overall, the reasoning for this report seems logical as presented above since the researcher deduced it from such an experiment that men and women taking the same dosage of capsulate are all taken into accounted. However, before any final decisions are made about a medical report, the researchers should see to it that all possible alternatives and causes are taken into account, after all, it is relative to life, the most precious of the world.

夏诺多UID: 2981956

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. Because(because 前后连接不要断开，可改为for) there are some striking errs: first, we are known(?) from above research that the 28 men and 20 women are(were) administered the same dosage of kappa opioids without any information about the 48 persons; second, as we know from the report that the easing of pain lasted considerably longer in women than in men, it is unsuitable that women should be prescribed with kappa opioids whenever pain medication is required(你可能理解错了，文章是说止痛的时间更长，这是好事，推不出你这结论); third, the participants of this survey are so few that the result has no representation; forth, even though the report is(建议用虚拟时态) true, there is still no need to reevaluate the effects of all medications. The careful analyses are shown below.
Now, let's analyze the first point. From above argument, we can only get the information about attendants that 28 men and 20 women tried the same dosage of kappa opioids when they were having their wisdom teeth extracted, and that' all. Obviously, the researchers are failing(这动作并不持续) to consider other possible factors, such factors may include the fact that men attended the research are much younger than women, so they can stomach less pains than women; or that the female candidate have a heavier weight than the male, because the lighter will feel more pain than one with heavier weight at the same condition that they are prescribed the same dosage of medicine due to the by-effect of medicine（这句逻辑我不是很理解，常识来说体重越大剂量就该越大，同等剂量上对于体重轻的效果应该好，而体重重的人由于剂量不够应该效果不好才对吧？）. In addition, the same health condition should be insured when they指代不明？ are invested in a research. In the second place, we are presented that the time women feel pain is considerably longer than men, （这段应该完全理解错了原文了。。。可以全删了）while the research still suggest to prescribing kappa opioids to women whenever pain medication is required. Is this ridiculous to you? I don't think it is not a better choose to use painkiller with both less pain and shorter time for women.

In fact, a study with only 48 participants is unreliable, especially on medicine. As we all know, medical应该是medicine is such a precise and meticulous subject that even little carelessness is not allowed(that forbids even a tiny mistake), otherwise, none dare没见过这种表述。。 to imagine the aftermath, for little mistake may kill a life. And it's a common sense that there are great deal of takers for each kind of medicine,(each medicine has a great deal of takers) the situation is the same不懂。。. Accordingly, each medicine should be triedtested at least by thousands of people who need also be observed for a period of time before put into use.
Finally, let's make the assumption that the report is最好虚拟 true, is there any need to reevaluate the effects of all medications on men versus women? The answer is absolutely no, for there are lots of medicines only for female or male.
Overall, the reasoning for this report seems logical as presented above since the researcher deduced it from such an experiment that men and women taking the same dosage of capsulate are all taken into accounted(这句好纠结啊～). However, before any final decision is made about a medical report, the researchers should see to it that all possible alternatives and causes are taken into account(the researchers must take into account all possible alternatives and causes), after all, it is relative to life(it is about life), the most precious thing in the world.
楼主对于题目理解有待加强，如果考试时理解错了就悲剧了。。。
另外跟本人一样，中式英语还是太重了～多看看别人的表达
然后建议学学北美范文的格式模板，这篇argu的行文过于随意了
第一段好长。。。字数分布不均～
然后就是时态和具体用词需要仔细斟酌一下，不如让步同意文章观点最好用虚拟
举的论据很鲜明恰当，比如男人更年轻这些～学习了～

Adolph.hu.85UID: 2964075

痛苦啊，这篇ARGUMENT写的！童鞋们，狠拍吧！
argument 53  

WORDS: 517 TIME: UNLIMITED                 DATE:  2011-3-3 19:55:57

The argument that increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is based on the research on a group of 25 infants, what's more, a follow-up study was conducted thirteen years later on the same 25 children-now teenagers. However, there are some assumptions that are not verified clearly and from which severe aftermath can result.

First of all, the most important thing is that the research isn't based on a large number of samples, but on 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli. In addition, the research was not executed methodically, because of many differences between 25 infants and control. What matters for any scientific research is that not only should the result be derived from a great amount of samples, and that the research must also be carried out meticulously and exactly. For example, there is a poll over ten thousand of people, while only ten percentage give their feedback, does the poll still remain reasonable? No matter what study comes to ten percentage, it is meaningless, for the consequence does not possess representativeness.

As the argument presents, there are twice surveys: one survey is on 25 infants exposed to unfamiliar stimuli such as an unusual odor or a tape recording of an unknown voice, the other is a follow-up study conducted thirteen years later than the first one when the infants are teenagers. There is a 13-year interval, this is, the 25 infants might live in a completely same life as other infants, or might not. It is commonly believed as a proverbial fact that environments have huge effects on the characteristics of people, and this is especially true for children. Those infants who have no friends in their childhood will say no words and identify themselves as shy. Based on the reasoning mentioned above, how unconvincing the follow-up study is!

Finally, before I come to my conclusion, there are still some flaws need to be pointed out. First, as the arguer said, the production of melatonin in these 25 infants' mothers would naturally increase in response to decreased daylight, so do other infants' mothers, now that all mother are live under the same circumstance. Second, there is a vague define about the function of hormone dotted with affecting "some" brain functions. Third, in the follow-up study, more than half of the 25 children have the traits of showing shy, and what does “more than ” exactly mean? Forth, according to the result that increased dose of melatonin in conceived mother result in shyness, pregnant mothers for fetuses good would bask themselves as more as they can, which can lead to skin cancer and is considerably harmful to fetuses.

All in all, the viewpoint of this argument that increased volume of melatonin in pregnant mother cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life is not thoroughly well-reasoned. Unless all other possible alternatives and causes are taken into account, the conclusion of this study isn't convincing.

zerrUID: 3006555

A53

Adolph.hu.85UID: 2964075

Argument-188.doc (30 KB, 下载次数: 0)

2011-3-4 23:30:02 上传

下载次数: 0

好心童鞋，帮忙看看，这是我用刚整理的argument框架写的，看看都有些什么问题，帮忙指正！谢谢

噜噜噜啦啦UID: 2982014

5# Adolph.hu.85
~The argument that increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is based on the research on a group of 25 infants,(这里好像有说数量已经足够多的意思，可是后文马上又相应的反驳，这里不应该用来让步的吧) what's more, a follow-up study was conducted thirteen years later on the same 25 children-now teenagers. However, there are some assumptions that are not verified clearly and from which severe aftermath can result.

First of all, the most important thing is that the research isn't based on a large number of samples, but on 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli. In addition, the research was not executed methodically, because of many differences between 25 infants and control. What matters for any scientific research is that not only should the result be derived from a great amount of samples, and that the research must also be carried out meticulously and exactly. For example, there is a poll over ten thousand of people, while only ten percentage give their feedback, does the poll still remain reasonable? No matter what study comes to ten percentage , it is meaningless, for the consequence does not possess representativeness.(这两句好像不太相关。原文并没有涉及到调查反馈者人数的问题，本来就已经明确了调查对象是只有25个人。你所攻击的问题应该是出现在调查结果说XX%的反馈人怎样怎样，而且没有告诉我们有多少人做了反馈吧)

As the argument presents, there are twice surveys: one survey is on 25 infants exposed to unfamiliar stimuli such as an unusual odor or a tape recording of an unknown voice, the other is a follow-up study conducted thirteen years later than the first one when the infants are teenagers. There is a 13-year interval, this is, the 25 infants might live in a completely same life as other infants, or might not. It is commonly believed as a proverbial fact that environments have huge effects on the characteristics of people, and this is especially true for children. Those infants who have no friends in their childhood will say no words and identify themselves as shy. Based on the reasoning mentioned above, how unconvincing the follow-up study is!

Finally, before I come to my conclusion, there are still some flaws need to be pointed out. First, as the arguer said, the production of melatonin in these 25 infants' mothers would naturally increase in response to decreased daylight, so do other infants' mothers, now that all mother are live under the same circumstance. Second, there is a vague define about the function of hormone dotted with affecting "some" brain functions. Third, in the follow-up study, more than half of the 25 children have the traits of showing shy, and what does “more than ” exactly mean? Forth, according to the result that increased dose of melatonin in conceived mother result in shyness, pregnant mothers for fetues good would bask themselves as more as they can, which can lead to skin cancer and is considerably harmful to fetuses. （最后一点怎么看不明白呀？晒太阳与褪黑激素有直接关系吗？对婴儿有害是有关皮肤癌的，和shyness有关吗？请指教）

All in all, the viewpoint of this argument that increased volume of melatonin in pregnant mother cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life is not thoroughly well-reasoned. Unless all other possible alternatives and causes are taken into account, the conclusion of this study isn't convincing.

语法错误没有改出来多少，文章的构架和思路比较的清晰，用词比较丰富。
有不少非陈述语句，让人读着不腻。不过，可以有感叹号出现吗？（这点我没有研究过），感叹号的出现会不会显得不理智？（只知道议论文里面是很少用感叹句）
主体部分的后面两段写非常详细，考虑的比较全面。与官方analyze in detail这个要求很相符。尤其是finally,还指出了这么多纰漏，写的还很清晰··但是有一个疑问，真的这些DETAIL对与这个结论有颠覆性作用吗？好像有的听上去不是那么搭边（个人看法而已）

总的来说还不错的，继续加油噢！