Argument57 G-89-互助社-8.12日同主题作文！请猛拍！

tuesday420UID: 202475

57The 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：
The memo asserts that a multimineral pill named Zorba is much helpful for prevent ulcers. To justify this statement, the arguer established it on a medical study that more people recurrent from ulcer since they took the Zorba. So this medicine should be recommended to the mass. The statement is well-reasoned at the first glance, however, is not thoroughly well-grounded after a further reflection. The arguer neglect all the necessary elements to evaluate the circumstance, thus makes his statement suffer from several fallacies, as discussed below.

To begin with, the arguer established his statement on a seeming grounded statistics, which itself is problematic. He mentions that only 25 percent of patients who took Zorba under the doctor's direction developed new ulcers, compare to the 75 percent recurrent without Zorba. However, he does not provide detail information of those target patients including sex, age, and the number ot study target. If there just several people participated the study, then the percentage can not served as justifiable evidence. Or, if the pills work well on the male, or on the youth who contribute to the mass of non-recurrence, then the function can not be deduced to the whole public. Furthermore, we can not exclude the possibility that the 75 percent patients who took the Zorba at the same time took some other medicines without notifying doctor, which play the key role in healing the ulcer. Without ruling out all these possibilities, the arguer can not convince me.

Secondly, the arguer simply assumes that the stated correlation implies the causation, which, however, is not necessarily warranted. Even the Zorba is effective in ulcer recovering; it does not surely will work well in preventing the first-time ulcer. The healing and prevention are totally different things, which, nevertheless, are confused by the arguer. It is common sense that we can not the medicine for cold to prevent the cold. It is too reckless to draw such a ridiculous conclusion.

Finally, the arguer does not provide information about the side-effect of the Zorda. As a dutiful doctor or researcher, the side-effect should be announced to the public, and enable the public the right to decide to use it or not. Meanwhile, if the Zorda's side-effect is too serious and will render the more people's health to heal the ulcer, it is not a real effective and suitable medicine, say, the arguer's recommendation is unjustifiable.

To conclude, the arguer does not provide any clear and reasoned evidence to bolster his claim but several ungrounded assumption and vague statistics. To lend the credibility to his statement, the arguer must provide more and clearer evidence that the pill is suit for the public to prevent the first-time ulcer. To better assess his recommendation, the arguer must provide the evidence that the pill's side-effect will not do too strong harm to the people's health.

jason0926UID: 200697

占座,看看
The memo(第一次看到这个词,呵呵) asserts that a multimineral pill named Zorba is much helpful for prevent(preventing) ulcers. To justify this statement, the arguer established it on a medical study that more people recurrent from ulcer since they took the Zorba. So this medicine should be recommended to the mass. The statement is well-reasoned at the first glance, however, is not thoroughly well-grounded after a further reflection. (这个句型和我刚开始的模板一样的,呵呵)The arguer neglect all the necessary elements to evaluate the circumstance, thus makes his statement suffer (suffers)from several fallacies, as discussed below.

To begin with, the arguer established his statement on a seeming grounded statistics, which itself is problematic. He mentions that only 25 percent of patients who took Zorba under the doctor's direction developed new ulcers, compare to the 75 percent recurrent without Zorba. However, he does not provide detail information of those target patients including sex, age, and the number ot study target. If there just several people participated the study, then the percentage can not served as justifiable evidence. Or, if the pills work well on the male, or on the youth who contribute to the mass of non-recurrence, then the function can not be deduced to the whole public. Furthermore, we can not exclude the possibility that the 75 percent patients who took the Zorba at the same time took some other medicines without notifying doctor, which play the key role in healing the ulcer. Without ruling out all these possibilities, the arguer can not convince me.(嗯,这段批评的不错,第一宗罪)

Secondly, the arguer simply assumes that the stated correlation implies the causation, which, however, is not necessarily warranted. Even the Zorba is effective in ulcer recovering; it does not surely will work well in preventing the first-time ulcer. The healing and prevention are totally different things, which, nevertheless, are confused by the arguer. It is common sense that we can not the medicine for cold to prevent the cold. It is too reckless to draw such a ridiculous conclusion.(预防不代表能治疗,观点正确)

Finally, the arguer does not provide information about the side-effect of the Zorda. As a dutiful doctor or researcher, the side-effect should be announced to the public, and enable the public the right to decide to use it or not. Meanwhile, if the Zorda's side-effect is too serious and will render the more people's health to heal the ulcer, it is not a real effective and suitable medicine, say, the arguer's recommendation is unjustifiable.(有没有副作用,你的三个观点和我一样,呵呵)

To conclude, the arguer does not provide any clear and reasoned evidence to bolster his claim but several ungrounded assumption and vague statistics. To lend the credibility to his statement, the arguer must provide more and clearer evidence that the pill is suit for the public to prevent the first-time ulcer. To better assess his recommendation, the arguer must provide the evidence that the pill's side-effect will not do too strong harm to the people's health.


文章整体还是不错的,三个错误都找到了,而且给予了解释, 就是第一个错误叙述的太多,后面两个少了点.结构清晰,不错,继续努力

[ Last edited by jason0926 on 2005-8-12 at 23:42 ]

tuesday420UID: 202475

多谢多谢 :D