argument76 有人理理我吧~~~

mrealUID: 201732

超时again~~~:confused:

ARGU76
about430words
对志愿者的选择，本身的皮肤状况对l效果的影响。
即使有明显作用，也不能排除是柔和香皂洗脸的功效还是洗脸后l的作用。
most是什么范围，要具体数字或比例才有说服力。
自愿者的自我感觉良好，也许是心理作用，并不能客观说明l的功效。
需要更多的对调查的描述，要排除l外的其他因素对人皮肤的改善，确定志愿者表述结果的客观性。
The arguer asserts in this article that Luxess (L) appears truly effective in improving the condition of facial skin, which he infers from a study of a group of volunteers. The arguer tries to convince us by favor from the volunteers using L for a month. Though the arguer provides most volunteers fully content with the marked improvement they gain from L, we can still figure out many fallacies this article suffering after our careful scrutiny.
The main problem of this argument is that no details of the study are presented to make it valuable, for here from nothing we can tell of the volunteers, which is of great importance for us to judge whether this study make any sense to the introduction of L. When the arguer refers a study, it would be his accountability to make the readers clear about the identity, the age, the job as well as the former condition of facial skin of the volunteers according to this face scream test. As none of above shown as standard for our readers' comparison, it fails to make L deep-impressed for its efficiency.
Another point dubious enough is that even assuming the volunteers are selected as a large sample and acceptable, we cannot assure that the reason, from which the volunteers feel their significant improvement on their facial skin, is due to the greatness of L but not the mild soap they use before the application of L. Admittedly, more evidences need to be present to rule out other possibilities that may also effect on the volunteers to the same final result of the study.
Thirdly, the result of the study is straight from the personal feeling of the volunteers who receive the responding test, which cannot form a objective examination of their own facial skin, let alone the changes L brings to them. It is highly possible that they may be impressed by the fine package of L, as a consequence, they overvalue the efficiency of L from the imagination they create in their mind and report the unconvincing result. Nevertheless, gathering those results to strengthen his study, the arguer explicitly lends no solid points to support his argument. What is more, the number of the reporters seems too vague to its validity as well, even an exact portion fails to cite in.
Although the arguer draws our attention to the reflection of the volunteers in the study, we cannot neglect the specious evidences in this article. To substantiate the argument, the author need to describe more about the study, in addition, ruling out other facets may shake L's sole position to improve the volunteers' facial condition would better evaluate the argument. Furthermore, the objectivity of the reports from the volunteers needs to be taken into consideration too.