argument57 决战830拍砖组™"8月17日作业 同主题高频请兄弟们拍

林森森UID: 163922

Argument57 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
   352 words
------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------

Merely based upon the dubious and unfounded evidence, the arguer attempts to convince us that Zorba helps prevent ulcers. To substantiate his claim, the arguer cites a study of first-time ulcer patients. In addition, he assumes that if the health experts inform the fact presented above, many first-time ulcers can be prevented. As this argument stands, several important concerns, which the arguer fails to consider, may undermine the line of reasoning.

The first and most glaring err in logical lies in the fact that the statistics of the study of first-time ulcer patients are invalid. Because,  as the total amount of the patients involved in this study , which is essential to represent the popular reaction of the pill, is ignored. Without the total basic number, we can not decide 75 percent recurrence rate is high enough to prove this pill will be effective to general, since the patients been studied might be similar in some special aspects that accelerate the effect of the pill.

In addition, another major failure in the argument is that even though the pill has the effect of first-time ulcer patients,  the patients with recurrent ulcers will not necessarily be cured by it. The arguer commits a fallacy of confusing cause with correlation. It is quite possible that the first-time ulcer patients were really cured in the study for its specific basic condition and the specific situation of the patients. Maybe the recurrent ulcers patients are proved from the pill, which, consequently, can never act on them.

Furthermore, the assumption that many first-time ulcers can be prevented by informed to take Zorba is unfounded.  One the one hand, as has been taken into consideration above, the limits of the single study is severe, thus can not support the conclusion that Zorba is able to cure many first-time ulcers for a specific group can never on behalf of general. On the other hand, even though the general public is informed by health experts, will they be convinced to buy Zorba to prevent ulcers which they never had? Probably not, I suppose. Because a sensible man may not take pills until he suffers illnesses (except epidemic ones and fatal ones) such as ulcers. Thus, this assumption is fundamentally unreliable.

In summary, the reasoning seems rational as presented above. However, the conclusion drawn by this argument proves misleading and invalid. To better evaluate this argument, we need more valid evidence and more reasonable argumentation.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-17 at 23:07 ]

BKRL1234UID: 2127835

Merely based upon the dubious and unfounded evidence, the arguer attempts to convince us that Zorba helps prevent ulcers. To substantiate his claim, the arguer cites a study of first-time ulcer patients. In addition, he assumes that if the health experts inform the fact presented above, many first-time ulcers can be prevented. As this argument stands, several important concerns, which the arguer fails to consider, may undermine the line of reasoning.

The first and most glaring err in logical lies in the fact that the statistics of the study of first-time ulcer patients are invalid. Because,  as the total amount of the patients involved in this study , which is essential to represent the popular reaction of the pill, is ignored（<- 这句好像不太通）. Without the total basic number, we can not decide 75 percent recurrence rate is high enough to prove this pill will be effective to general, since the patients been studied（been studied不太好吧） might be similar in some（certain） special aspects that accelerate the effect of the pill.

In addition, another major failure in the argument is that even though the pill has the effect of first-time ulcer patients,  the patients with recurrent ulcers will not necessarily be cured by it. The arguer commits a fallacy of confusing cause with correlation. It is quite possible that the first-time ulcer patients were really cured in the study for its specific basic condition and the specific situation of the patients. Maybe the recurrent ulcers patients are proved（
immune？ineffective？） from the pill, which, consequently, can never act on them.

Furthermore, the assumption that many first-time ulcers can be prevented by informed to take Zorba is unfounded.  One（ON） the one hand, as has been taken into consideration above, the limits of the single study is severe, thus can not support the conclusion that Zorba is able to cure many first-time ulcers for a specific group can never on behalf of general. On the other hand, even though the general public is informed by health experts, will they be convinced to buy Zorba to prevent ulcers which they never had? Probably not, I suppose. Because a sensible man may not take pills until he suffers illnesses (except epidemic ones and fatal ones) such as ulcers. Thus, this assumption is fundamentally unreliable.

In summary, the reasoning seems rational as presented above. However, the conclusion drawn by this argument proves misleading and invalid. To better evaluate this argument, we need more valid evidence and more reasonable argumentation.（这结尾万灵药啊，稍微和文章挂点钩吧）

说的很到位阿，而且句式灵活，批判也很有力！
非常值得学习！！