Argument76 限时未遂，请大家帮忙看看！谢谢，回拍请留链接

Archer1123UID: 206148

ARGUMENT 76 - The following appeared as part of an article in a health and beauty magazine.
"A group of volunteers participated in a study of consumer responses to the new Luxess face cream. Every morning for a month, they washed their faces with mild soap and then applied Luxess. At the end of that month, most volunteers reported a marked improvement in the way their skin looked and felt. Thus it appears that Luxess is truly effective in improving the condition of facial skin."
在事先理清思路，拟好提纲的情况下仍然超时，呜呜……写完第三点就没什么时间了，看了以后只能选三个相对重要的点来驳斥了，唉

1.        study的可信度代表性（sample quantity, volunteers personal conditions,）
2.        结果的真实性(reported ≠ fact, psychological hint)
3.        可能是它因造成（mild soap, mild climate, good gene, ）
4.        下结论太早（too short test period, neglect potential harm, not all volunteers’ skin are improved）

In the article, based on a study the author assumes that Luxess face cream (L) is effective in ameliorating the condition of facial skin. It is well-presented, however, the conclusion suffers from several logical flaws for uncompleted consideration.

To begin with, the study that the author based on is too vague to be informative. We have no idea of the detailed sample quantity and the particular personal conditions of volunteers. Perhaps only a few people taking part in the test so that they cannot represent the whole condition. It is possible that most of them come from one place or are of the same age. It is also possible that large parts of them are doctors or beauticians who are experts in protecting and meliorating facial skin. Without the detailed information about the study, it is hard or even impossible for us to regard it as a scientific and representative one.

Furthermore, even if we accept the study, the authenticity of its result is open to doubt. Since the author only mentions that most volunteers reported a marked improvement in the way their skin looked and felt, the true conditions of their facial skin is not rendered in the article. Possibly the complexion of their skin is same as before in looked and felt, they reported like that under the influence of psychological hint. Even if their facial skin is ameliorated in looked and felt, the actual conditions of their facial skin is not changed while the better feeling is ostensible. Without scientific measured data about various parameters of volunteers' facial skin, the evidence cannot bolster the author's conclusion well.

In addition, even if we concede most testers' facial skin gains a notable amelioration, it is too hasty to make a conclusion that L contributes to the result. Common sense tells us, there are numerous factors could affect the condition of facial skin, such as the climate, the gene and hormone. If the experiment is conducted in a place where there has mild climate, or most volunteers have good genes which redound to meliorating facial skin, or most participants are in good mood, their facial skin might be improved whether they applied L or not. What is more, the mild soap mentioned in study might play a vital role in ameliorating facial skin. If the author cannot rule out these possibilities, the effectivity of L will be weakened greatly.

Last but not least, granted L is effective in improving most volunteers' facial skin, the generalization of L is premature. One month seems too short to make a scientific and exact conclusion in that some potential diseases or harms which might appear after a long term cannot be found during the one-month experiment period. Moreover, the study merely refers to most volunteers' responds, how about other testers' condition is omitted. Therefore, we have good reason to doubt L harms to or make worse off some volunteer's facial skin. If so, the author's conclusion is misleading and even jeopardous.

To sum up, based on what has discussed above it is obvious that the conclusion is too presumptuous to be accepted. To make it more convincing, the author should provide evidence to prove L ‘s effectivity in improving facial skin.