argument200 牙医和病人 同主题欢迎互拍 信誉保证 BOW

dicmiUID: 183392

TOPIC: ARGUMENT200 - Statistics collected from dentists indicate that three times more men than women faint while visiting the dentist. This evidence suggests that men are more likely to be distressed about having dental work done than women are. Thus, dentists who advertise to attract patients should target the male consumer and emphasize both the effectiveness of their anesthetic techniques and the sensitivity of their staff to nervous or suffering patients.
WORDS: 560          TIME: 0:30:00( + 5 Min)          DATE: 2006-8-10



A threshold problem with this argument is that the statistics of study cited by the author is open to doubt. We are not informed how these statistics derived, and thus cannot take the statistics as granted. First, the author only compares how many times men or women faint respectively, without inferring the total number of them. Possibly, there are more men visiting the dentist than women, maybe ten times or so; but according to statistics, there only three times more men than women faint. Obviously, it only proves that the women are more inclined to faint, which goes in sharp contrast to the author's conclusion. Secondly, the author fails to provide the sampling process and the number of respondents, which also render the statistics unreliable. It is possible that only a few, like less than five dentists, involved in this study. Also, it is equally possible that the dentists told a wrong number of people faint to the researchers in order to cover their incompetence as dentists. According to both two points, if true, study cannot reflect the overall situation. Hence, from these two aspects, unless the author could give further information about the study, the statistics of the study is unpersuasive.

Moreover, even granted that the statistics is valid, the author provides poor evidence to establish the cause-effect relationship between faint and distress. Common sense informs us that faint has a close connection with individual situations and the process during treatment. In that case, lacking the information about men's physical situation, age range, occupation, it is presumptuous to draw such a conclusion. Chance is that, majority of men who go visiting dentists are old men and have more severe disease than the women, and thus they are more likely to faint. Meanwhile, another chance is that there are other contributors leading to men's faint rather than distress, like the medicine used during treatment. Therefore, if the author cannot rule out those possible reasons mentioned above, he/she cannot convince us that the men faint is due to their distresses.

Additionally, providing the causal relation is substantiated, the advertise strategy advised by the author is problematic somehow. For one thing, it is unfairly to only focus on the male patients while neglect the female patients. Because we are not told about the gender composition of consumers, we have reasons to doubt that perhaps most of consumers are women, whereas only a little fraction is men. If it is true, targeting the male consumer may disappoint female patients and drive them to other dentists. For another, only stressing the anesthetic techniques and the sensitivity of staff is unwarranted by this argument. To this point, no evidence is cited to prove that men only care about those two aspects. Rather, their choice of dentists may depend on other factors, say clinic's facilities, dentists' general techniques, or the price they have to pay. In short, a lot of contributors could influence patients' choice and the two factors cited by the author are only part of them. As a consequence, failing to account for so many other relevant factors, we cannot take the strategy too seriously.

jallineUID: 2192970

seat

pewcg8UID: 2143213

可以去参照官方范文3!

jallineUID: 2192970

A threshold problem with this argument is that the statistics of study cited by the author is open to doubt. We are not informed how these statistics derived, and thus cannot take the statistics as[for] granted. First, the author only compares how many times men or women faint respectively, without inferring the total number of them. Possibly, there are more men visiting the dentist than women, maybe ten times or so; but according to statistics, there[is] only three times more men than women faint. Obviously, it only proves that the women are more inclined to faint, which goes in sharp contrast to the author's conclusion.[一个alternative就写了这么长, 强] Secondly, the author fails to provide the sampling process and the number of respondents, which also render the statistics unreliable. It is possible that only a few, like less than five dentists, involved in this study. Also, it is equally possible that the dentists told a wrong number of people faint to the researchers in order to cover their incompetence as dentists.[这个和性别之间出现的差异没直接联系吧] According to both two points, if true, study cannot reflect the overall situation. Hence, from these two aspects, unless the author could give further information about the study, the statistics of the study is unpersuasive.

Moreover, even granted that the statistics is valid, the author provides poor evidence to establish the cause-effect relationship between faint and distress. Common sense informs us that faint has a close connection with individual situations and the process during treatment. In that case, lacking the information about men's physical situation, age range, occupation, it is presumptuous to draw such a conclusion. Chance is that, majority of men who go visiting dentists are old men and have more severe disease than the women, and thus they are more likely to faint. Meanwhile, another chance is that there are other contributors leading to men's faint rather than distress, like the medicine used during treatment. Therefore, if the author cannot rule out those possible reasons mentioned above, he/she cannot convince us that the men faint is due to their distresses.

Additionally, providing the causal relation is substantiated, the advertise strategy advised by the author is problematic somehow. For one thing, it is unfairly to only focus on the male patients while neglect the female patients. Because we are not told about the gender composition of consumers, we have reasons to doubt that perhaps most of consumers are women, whereas only a little fraction is men. If it is true, targeting the male consumer may disappoint female patients and drive them to other dentists. For another, only stressing the anesthetic techniques and the sensitivity of staff is unwarranted by this argument. To this point, no evidence is cited to prove that men only care about those two aspects. Rather, their choice of dentists may depend on other factors, say clinic's facilities, dentists' general techniques, or the price they have to pay. In short, a lot of contributors could influence patients' choice and the two factors cited by the author are only part of them. As a consequence, failing to account for so many other relevant factors, we cannot take the strategy too seriously.

惭愧, 实在改不出什么问题了
句子也比以前精练多了.
保持状态~~

晴天丫头UID: 2225690

我完全是来学习的！！！

wp123UID: 2187508

现在怎么都时兴不写首尾了。...

dicmiUID: 183392

学你的。hoho：）

dicmiUID: 183392

我在学习你的131。。太牛了。。。
我131憋了N久阿。。。艺术真是Issue中噩梦。。。for me

只爱小不点UID: 2189745

A threshold problem with this argument is that the statistics of study cited by the author is open to doubt. We are not informed how these statistics [are]derived, and thus cannot take the statistics as[for] granted. First, the author only compares how many times men or women faint respectively, without inferring the total number of them. Possibly, there are more men visiting the dentist than women, maybe ten times or so; but according to statistics, there only three times more men than women faint.[我觉得这里不大能看出来women的昏厥率就一定比men低。如果women中没有人昏呢？可能要表述的再清楚点，在两个具体的情况下比较] Obviously, it only proves that the women are more inclined to faint, which goes in sharp contrast to the author's conclusion. Secondly, the author fails to provide the sampling process and the number of respondents, which also render the statistics unreliable. It is possible that only a few, like less than five dentists, involved in this study. Also, it is equally possible that the dentists told a wrong number of people faint to the researchers in order to cover their incompetence as dentists.[我也觉得这个理由有点牵强] According to both two points, if true, study cannot reflect the overall situation. Hence, from these two aspects, unless the author could give further information about the study, the statistics of the study is[are] unpersuasive.

Moreover, even granted that the statistics is[are] valid, the author provides poor evidence to establish the cause-effect relationship between faint and distress. Common sense informs us that faint has a close connection with individual situations and the process during treatment. In that case, lacking the information about men's physical situation, age range, occupation, it is presumptuous to draw such a conclusion. Chance is that, majority of men who go visiting dentists are old men and have more severe disease than the women, and thus they are more likely to faint. Meanwhile, another chance is that there are other contributors leading to men's faint rather than distress, like the medicine used during treatment. Therefore, if the author cannot rule out those possible reasons mentioned above, he/she cannot convince us that the men faint is due to their distresses.[这段，尤其是前面的可能性分析得很好，学习～～呵呵]
Additionally, providing the causal relation is substantiated, the advertise strategy advised by the author is problematic somehow. For one thing, it is unfairly[unfair] to only focus on the male patients while neglect the female patients. Because we are not told about the gender composition of consumers, we have reasons to doubt that perhaps most of consumers are women, whereas only a little fraction is men.[我写这句的时候就一笔带过了，再学习] If it is true, targeting the male consumer may disappoint female patients and drive them to other dentists. For another, only stressing the anesthetic techniques and the sensitivity of staff is unwarranted by this argument. To this point, no evidence is cited to prove that men only care about those two aspects. Rather, their choice of dentists may depend on other factors, say clinic's facilities, dentists' general techniques, or the price they have to pay. In short, a lot of contributors could influence patients' choice and the two factors cited by the author are only part of them. As a consequence, failing to account for so many other relevant factors, we cannot take the strategy too seriously.

唉唉，真是献丑了～～我太希望像楼主这样的高手点评一下，所以只好先硬着头皮给楼主挑刺了～总的来说，楼主最大特点是论证充分，这点也是我最缺乏的；逻辑，语言都很清晰，呵呵～～希望楼主帮我看看吧，欢迎猛拍。这篇第一次限时，一上来脑子懵了，本来打字就很慢，30分钟完了，只写了不到200字，第一个点都没攻击完:L楼主有什么心得贡献一下吧:) 非常感谢！
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... E%D0%A1%B2%BB%B5%E3

[ 本帖最后由 只爱小不点 于 2006-8-10 23:28 编辑 ]

wandonyeUID: 2143573

原帖由 dicmi 于 2006-8-10 16:33 发表
A threshold problem with this argument is that the statistics of study cited by the author is open to doubt. We are not informed how these statistics derived, and thus cannot take the statistics as granted. First, the author only compares how many times men or women faint respectively, without inferring the total number of them. Possibly, there are more men visiting the dentist than women, maybe ten times or so; but according to statistics, there only three times more men than women faint. Obviously, it only proves that the women are more inclined to faint, which goes in sharp contrast to the author's conclusion. Secondly, the author fails to provide the sampling process and the number of respondents, which also render the statistics unreliable. It is possible that only a few, like less than five dentists, involved in this study. Also, it is equally possible that the dentists told a wrong number of people faint to the researchers in order to cover their incompetence as dentists(通过官方6分的例子来看，不鼓励质疑统计数据有效性，尤其是被调查者说谎，除非是在没得错误找了，此事好象某位老战友也提过). According to both two points, if true, study cannot reflect the overall situation. Hence, from these two aspects, unless the author could give further information about the study, the statistics of the study is unpersuasive.

Moreover, even granted that the statistics is valid, the author provides poor evidence to establish the cause-effect relationship between faint and distress. Common sense informs us that faint has a close connection with individual situations and the process during treatment. In that case, lacking the information about men's physical situation, age range, occupation, it is presumptuous to draw such a conclusion. Chance is that, majority of men who go visiting dentists are old men and have more severe disease than the women, and thus they are more likely to faint. Meanwhile, another chance is that there are other contributors leading to men's faint rather than distress, like the medicine used during treatment. Therefore, if the author cannot rule out those possible reasons mentioned above(without ruling out such possibilities，简洁点, my favorite[/), he/she cannot convince us that the men faint is due to their distresses.

Additionally, providing the causal relation is substantiated, the advertise strategy advised by the author is problematic somehow. For one thing, it is unfairly(unfair) to only focus on the male patients while neglect the female patients. Because we are not told about the gender composition of consumers, we have reasons to doubt that perhaps most of consumers are women, whereas only a little fraction is men. If it is true, targeting the male consumer may disappoint female patients and drive them to other dentists. For another, only stressing the anesthetic techniques and the sensitivity of staff is unwarranted by this argument. To this point, no evidence is cited to prove that men only care about those two aspects. Rather, their choice of dentists may depend on other factors, say clinic's facilities, dentists' general techniques, or the price they have to pay. In short, a lot of contributors could influence patients' choice and the two factors cited by the author are only part of them. As a consequence, failing to account for so many other relevant factors, we cannot take the strategy too seriously.

flycc28UID: 2164453

同意ls的说法  此类调查错误宜一笔带过 当然用来冲字数还是可以的,其实我自己写的不少...

第二段出彩,也是我认为最核心的地方 赞一下

学习学习~

欢迎回拍https://bbs.gter.net/thread-511078-1-1.html

dicmiUID: 183392

呃。。好的
谢谢楼上帮忙改的朋友~

我修改完手头的issue 就来改

赫赫，稍等

dicmiUID: 183392

Revised Edition

A threshold problem with this argument is that the statistics of study cited by the author is open to doubt. We are not informed how these statistics are derived, and thus cannot take the statistics for granted. First, the author only compares how many times men or women faint respectively, without inferring the total number of them. Possibly, there are more men visiting the dentist than women, maybe ten times or so; but according to statistics, there only three times more men than women faint. Obviously, it only proves that the women are more inclined to faint, which goes in sharp contrast to the author's conclusion. Secondly, the author fails to provide the sampling process and the number of respondents, which also render the statistics unreliable. It is possible that only a few, like less than five dentists, involved in this study. In this case, if it is true, statistics from the study will not reflect the overall situation. Hence, from these two aspects, unless the author could give further information about the study, the statistics of the study is unpersuasive.

Moreover, even granted that the statistics are valid, the author provides poor evidence to establish the cause-effect relationship between faint and distress. Common sense informs us that faint has a close connection with individual situations and the process during treatment. In that case, lacking the information about men's physical situation, age range, occupation, it is presumptuous to draw such a conclusion. Chance is that, majority of men who go visiting dentists are old men and have more severe disease than the women, and thus they are more likely to faint. Meanwhile, another chance is that there are other contributors leading to men's faint rather than distress, like the medicine used during treatment. Therefore, without ruling out those possible reasons mentioned above, he/she cannot convince us that the men faint is due to their distresses.

Additionally, providing the causal relation is substantiated, the advertise strategy advised by the author is problematic somehow. For one thing, author’s first assumption is that the majority of consumers are male. The second assumption is that male patients will trust the authenticity of those advertisements. However, the author fails to provide any concrete evidence to substantiate any assumption. For another, only stressing the anesthetic techniques and the sensitivity of staff is unwarranted by this argument. To this point, no evidence is cited to prove that men only care about those two aspects. Rather, their choice of dentists may depend on other factors, say clinic's facilities, dentists' general techniques, or the price they have to pay. In short, a lot of contributors could influence patients' choice and the two factors cited by the author are only part of them. As a consequence, failing to account for so many other relevant factors, we cannot take the strategy too seriously.

对于男女昏厥比例的论证我是这么想的：
男的总数是女的十倍
但是男的的昏厥数目只是女的三倍
不就是能证明男的不容易昏厥么？

fenghua9801UID: 2191885

是不是该拿具体的数来说一下？比如100个男的，30个晕，20个女的，10个晕

晴天丫头UID: 2225690

多谢lz夸奖~

lz的Argument才是真功夫哈