刨根问底看范文之argument篇--第四集 s-b牙膏的故事

berninaUID: 2503038

对于姗姗来迟的这一集，哎，征求大家的谅解，以后会两天一篇的~~

A recent survey of dental patients showed that people who use Smile-Bright toothpaste are most likely to have capped teeth -- artificial but natural-looking protective coverings placed by dentists on individual teeth. Those people who had begun using Smile-Bright toothpaste early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than were people who had begun using Smile-Bright later in life.
In addition, those who reported brushing their teeth more than twice a day with Smile-Bright toothpaste were more likely to have caps on their teeth than were those who reported brushing with Smile-Bright less frequently.
Therefore, people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste.

这篇文章属于劝说类，作者的目的就是劝大家不要干某事，而且这篇文章是六篇范文里唯一一篇质疑survey的，大家一直对到底要不要质疑survey很迷茫，什么时候质疑？什么时候不质疑呢？我会用这篇文章和之后的五六集给大家一个解释。
我们先来看看这篇文章的逻辑关系：

目的：劝大家如果你不想capped teeth，那你就不要用sb（大家原谅我不得不要用这个缩写）
因为：有个牙医做的survey 指出：
1，
很早前就用s-b这个牙膏的人比那些才用s-b这个牙膏的人更容易去capped teeth.
2，
用s-b这个牙膏一天刷牙两次的人比用这个牙膏刷一次牙的人更容易capped teeth
所以：用s-b 牙膏会就会让人去capped teeth ,要是不想capped teeth 就不要用这个牙膏
我们先来分析一下，短文的作者因为看到了这个survey上的两点就得出结论说s-b这个牙膏让人capped teeth 是不是有些唐突了呢？

首先：短文作者根本不知道这个survey是干什么的，不知道这个survey的背景是什么，那些牙医做这个survey到底是为了证明s-b会导致capped teeth呢，还是如果你已经capped teeth了用s-b会让你的capped teeth效果更好呢？这个不好想，大家好好想想，

我举个例子：有个调查说，每天吃两片s-b减肥药的人比一天吃一片的人胖，并且长时间吃s-b减肥药的人比短时间吃s-b减分药的人胖，所以，这个s-b减肥药会让人发胖？！
因为我胖我才需要吃s-b，因为我比人家更胖所以我需要一天吃两片，这才是真正的原因吧。所以对应文章，是不是因为这些人已经capped teeth了所以才需要用s-b 这个牙膏呢？是不是这个牙膏是专门为capped teeth的人研制的呢？

其次：就算这个牙医当时做这个调查确实是为了说明s-b这个牙膏会导致人们去capped teeth，但是这个调查可信么？短文这里的逻辑漏洞就是轻易相信了这个survey 所以武断的下了结论，所以我们需要帮他考虑一下这个survey的可信性，所以我们需要质疑survey。

好了，我的分析到此结束，我们来领略一下范文：这篇文章逻辑非常之缜密，佩服佩服，学习学习呀~~~


The argument contains several facets that are questionable. First, the reliability and generalizability
of the survey are open to quesiton. In addition, the argument assumes a correlation amounts to a causal relationship. The argument also fails to examine alternative explanations. I will discuss each of these facets in turn.
大家思考，我后面解释~~

In evaluating the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted. If the questions were leading or if the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable – 1，people might just respond with the expected answer. One must also consider how broad the survey was. If the survey was limited to a few patients of a certain dentist, 2，the results might be attributable to those particular individuals and that particular dentist. Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to most people. In addition, even if the survey was broader, 3，one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways. For example, were the survey respondents old people? Was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region? Factors such as these could explain the survey results and could undermine the generalizability of the survey results.
大家可以看出我画出的三个点是作者对survey 进行质疑的地方，大家想想自己在疯狂热衷质疑survey的时候有没有想得这么全？特别是第三点，有没有给出他因？特别是那个for example?

Even if one accepts the survey results, the argument remains questionable. 1,The argument assumes that the correlation between the use of SMILEBRIGHT and capped teeth means that SMILE BRIGHT causes the need for capped teeth. But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.  In addition, the argument 2,fails to consider the possibility that people who already have capped teeth might prefer SMILEBRIGHT as a toothpaste because it works better on capped teeth.
这个就是我刚说的第一点了，我写出的两个点是作者对短文逻辑漏洞的又一个攻击，作者写的非常好，我看到这点后那个叫佩服啊，说实话我刚开始看短文的时候并没有想到这点，作者的逻辑性真的很强啊，所以这点以后我们可以直接用在survey 类的文章中去。

Finally, the argument's author fails to rule out alternative explanations.  For instance, 1，people who brush their teeth more than twice a day might be those who are prone to the need to have their teeth capped. It might also be the case that starting with SMILEBRIGHT early in life damages the teeth so that capped teeth will be needed later. 2，It also might be the case that SMILEBRIGHT users tend to be the kind of people who are excessively concerned with the appearance of their teeth, perhaps theyre actors, and so are the kind of people who might, sooner or later, want to have their teeth capped anyway.
这段说了作者没有考虑的一些他因，大家注意了没，这些他因也是因为短文有可能没有搞清楚capped teeth和 s-b的关系而造成的，想想我上面说的减肥药的事情~~

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logocal at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the correlation is indeed a causal relationship -- that using the toothpaste actually causes the need for capped teeth. It could be further improved by ruling out alternative explanations for the supposed causal relationship.
大家看看最后这句，说如果这篇文章能把这些他因都排除了，那么他将更有说服力，又明显表明了作者的态度不是吧短文劈头盖脸的大骂一顿，而是帮他是他更有说服力，逻辑性更强，所以，我们也好好想想我们的文章该怎么写吧

好了，我来把文章的整体思路缕一缕，这篇文章思路非常简单清晰，逻辑性极强：
opening：交代了文章的两大部分：
1，
survey 不可靠
2，
即使survey可靠，短文也不能因此而得出结论说s-b 导致让人们capped teeth,因为文章并没有交代survey的目的什么。
Body 1, survey 不可靠
（1）
问卷上的问题是不是存在引导性或暗示性？
（2）
调查人数是不是太少，仅仅局限于个别人？
（3）
调查群体是否能代表所有人？年龄啦，健康状况啦，所在城市啦，调查都能包含所有情况么？
2 survey 没有说明s-b 和capped teeth 的逻辑关系
是因为使用s-b 才导致人们去capped teeth 呢？
还是因为要capped teeth 才使用s-b 呢？
3，
没有排除一些他因（他因也是因为两者的逻辑关系的不确定而造成的）
（1）
经常使用s-b的可能是想去capped teeth
（2）
使用s-b时间长的人可能是很早牙就不好了，所以打算capped teeth 而使用s-b会让capped teeth 效果更好，所以他们就用了。
（3）
使用s-b 的人都是对自己的牙有高要求的人，他们都capped teeth了，并且想让capped teeth 的效果更好，就用s-b 了
End
你这个短文并没有很有力的说服大家不用s-b为了避免capped teeth ，如果你想要更有说服力，那么你就~~~

来看看commentary ：
表扬点：
1，表扬了开头：This outstanding response begins by announcing that the argument "contains several facets that are questionable."大家看到了吗？文章的三段都是在首段中交代出来的，就是我标出的橙色的三点。这就说明这篇文章的开头是我们需要写出来的。也就是开头将你要说的都总结一下。
2，分析透彻，并且交代了细节
这就说明，我们写的时候也要尽量的往细，往具体的说！
3，文章组织清楚，The organization is clear and logical; in fact, the organizational plan outlined in the first paragraph is followed to the letter in the second through fourth paragraphs. 看到没？有提到开头的outlined了，如果这样暗示我们还听不出来，我们就太~~~4，文章过度很自然，The writing is fluent -- transitions guide the reader from point to point in each paragraph; 这就要归功于他每段的过渡词了，其实这些过渡词大家都会用的吧，我们需要的就是在首段把我们的观点都已交代，并且每段出来几个过渡词，当然如果你不使用过度的词也能让文章看起来很流利自然，那就更好了，这是努力的方向。
批评点：
其实都不能说是批评，文章仅仅个打字错误，可以忽略~~

Ok~~这就是关于这篇survey 的分析，大家好好想想在什么情况下我们需要质疑survey，后面的两片也是有survey的，但是没有被作者拎出来，有时为什呢？悬念~~~敬请下回分解~~
Ps: 欢迎大家质疑的声音

berninaUID: 2503038

66 总是那么快~~感动一个~

ddcmj519UID: 176326

板凳围观。

Alex_2009UID: 2616286

赞一个~~加油！顶之~~
稍后来看~~

seiranzcc1UID: 2514067

Bernina，这次分析俺觉得很精彩，膜拜一个~~~话说我对分析A题目实在不在行，这次这个题我直接昏了，完全找不到什么太有力的东西，看了你的分析很有收获！
==============================================================
1、A recent survey of dental patients showed that people who use Smile-Bright toothpaste are most likely to have capped teeth -- artificial but natural-looking protective coverings placed by dentists on individual teeth.
2、Those people who had begun using Smile-Bright toothpaste early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than were people who had begun using Smile-Bright later in life.
In addition,3、 those who reported brushing their teeth more than twice a day with Smile-Bright toothpaste were more likely to have caps on their teeth than were those who reported brushing with Smile-Bright less frequently.
Therefore, people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste.

说实话，按照以前的思路，拿到题目自动就开始找哪里哪里说的不严密，是漏洞，但这种方法来分析这道题—行不通—我感觉这样说下来不仅没有整体性，而且很容易就卡壳。
之前听前辈们说过A需要的是整体的分析，而不是零散的攻击，一直觉得很抽象，但是在看了这篇文章之后，这种感觉非常明了！纵观题干，作者步步推理，从survey结果到各类事实，可以说很客观，那么问题究竟在什么地方？
1、2、3三点是作者的主要论证点，都是客观现象，所以问题不是出在作者所罗列的一干论据上，而是背后的“方法”！也就是作者得出结论的方式！
对于1，作者忽视了survey的调查方法，调查方式本身可能具有漏洞而使结果不可靠。这里随时质疑survey, 但是究其本质还是一个逻辑上的分析，对于客观地事实是没有否认的（只是这些事实还不够严密充分）
对于2，我觉得作者真的很强。我自己在看题目的时候，死活不知道着部分的问题究竟在哪里，虽然觉得肯定有不对的地方。这里其实是一个陷阱，尤其对我这样逻辑欠缺的人，这种陈述也会让我直接习惯性想到“牙膏引起了CT”，但其实这句的问题就是这种定式思维。
第三点他因，其实也和2一样有个因果逻辑的问题。
Bernina那个减肥药私认为很形象，同样的现象，用不同的因果逻辑分析就截然不同了
（不知道这种思维是不是叫因果，总之就是那意思“因为。。。才。。。”）

6、
The argument contains several facets that are questionable.
First, the reliability and generalizability of the survey are open to quesiton.
In addition, the argument assumes a correlation amounts to a causal relationship. The argument also fails to examine alternative explanations.I will discuss each of these facets in turn.

In evaluating the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted.(我划了how，个人觉得这个是之一的关键，调查手法的不严密使这一结果作为论据二不够充分，挑的其实是逻辑上的问题)
If the questions were leading or if the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answer. One must also consider how broad the survey was. If the survey was limited to a few patients of a certain dentist, the results might be attributable to those particular individuals and that particular dentist. Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to most people.
In addition, even if the survey was broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways. For example, were the survey respondents old people? Was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region? Factors such as these could explain the survey results and could undermine the generalizability of the survey results.

Even if one accepts the survey results, the argument remains questionable. The argument assumes that the correlation between the use of SMILEBRIGHT and capped teeth means that SMILE BRIGHT causes the need for capped teeth.（我觉得这点绝妙，我现在是死活没这境界的，真正就到了“逻辑”上的关节！孰因孰果？）
But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. In addition, the argument fails to consider the possibility that people who already have capped teeth might prefer SMILEBRIGHT as a toothpaste because it works better on capped teeth.

Finally, the argument's author fails to rule out alternative explanations. For instance, people who brush their teeth more than twice a day might be those who are prone to the need to have their teeth capped.
It might also be the case that starting with SMILEBRIGHT early in life damages the teeth so that capped teeth will be needed later. It also might be the case that SMILEBRIGHT users tend to be the kind of people who are excessively concerned with the appearance of their teeth, perhaps theyre actors, and so are the kind of people who might, sooner or later, want to have their teeth capped anyway.
我觉得这点“他因”很值得借鉴，着其实并不是在找文章直接呈现出来的东西，而是在挖掘文章没有说的，或者说，作者潜在地认为“所有人牙齿状况和个人需求都一样”，这里本来就存在很多问题，毕竟个体情况很复杂。不然，“twice”这一个点真是没有太多可说的。

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logocal at first, has several flaws as discussed above.
The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the correlation is indeed a causal relationship -- that using the toothpaste actually causes the need for capped teeth.
It could be further improved by ruling out alternative explanations for the supposed causal relationship.

zzz.321UID: 2600329

先占楼～～

cjluUID: 2448066

首先，依旧谢谢Bernina辛勤认真的工作^^鼓掌鼓掌~
和平常一样，看到这个题目以后首先想到的并不是质疑the survey，而是想要论证这个survey并不能show出这个结论。仔细观察了一下我觉得第一段貌似应该是这样的：
Those people who had begun using Smile-Bright toothpaste early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than were people who had begun using Smile-Bright later in life showed that people who use Smile-Bright toothpaste are most likely to have capped teeth -- artificial but natural-looking protective coverings placed by dentists on individual teeth.
逻辑关系就是用S-B早的人比用S-B晚的人capped teeth多→用S-B导致capped teeth。我首先想到的还是它因法，也就是直接攻击推导过程。没有想到要去质疑survey本身（确实不知道应该在什么时候质疑survey啊^^）
而且，更重要的是没有想到题目是不是倒置了因果关系，这一点范文启发真的很大~这个确实是题目重要的漏洞，而范文攻击的非常精彩。
另外，范文的它因也运用的恰到好处，尤其是插入的例子和引人思考的方式。
范文主要采用了让步攻击的方式，从头到尾批驳的非常完美但是并不凌厉，而是采取了一种非常温和的建议态度。
语言方面用词并不难，主要特色还是逻辑鲜明。也算是一种启示吧。想起自己第一篇Argument，现在写一定不会再那么纠结于语言问题反而淡化逻辑了^^成长了成长了~
总之……这篇真的没有什么好说的。学习了^^

jessicaluluUID: 2471730

B，指出一个小错误，你文中提到“因为：有个牙医做的survey 指出：”但是题干并没有给出这个survey是谁进行的噢～并没有提到是牙医做出的survey哈～

我的题目分析：这是一个调查，其要素如下
调查的目的：探寻SB和CT之间的关系
调查的对象：dental patients（但是并没有详细说明这部分patients是已经有CT的还是没有CT的。样本人群的选择有两个基本要素，一个是可比性即人群的年龄基础牙齿情况甚至性别用牙卫生习惯等在两组间是否有可比性，一个是代表性即能否广泛代表人群中的一般情况）
调查的方法：未提（随机、盲法、问卷or其它方式、操作者等重要的信息均为提及）
调查的结果：1、用得早的比用得晚的更可能CT；2、次数多的比次数少的更可能CT
调查的结论：SB会导致CT

接下来，结合范文和B的分析，jessi读范文：

首段
First, the reliability and generalizability of the survey are open to quesiton(此句写得极为精妙，reliability/generalizability两词简洁又精准得指出逻辑漏洞。强烈学习～)

In addition, the argument assumes a correlation amounts to a causal relationship（这句写得也好，错误的类比关系）

第二段
be attributable to
第一大点其实主要就是在说我所说的样本的问题。但是作者考虑得更细致，给出了几种无法generalization的可能性，这是值得学习的。关于reliability这一点，除了people might just respond with the expected answer，还可以扩展一下，从实施调查者和被调查者两个方面来说：对于实施调查者而言，是否是经过专业训练的调查人员避免误导被调查者给出所期望的答案；是否被采用盲法以免造成偏倚（即调查人员事先并不知道哪些人是实验组哪些是对照组，避免先入为主）；是否采访的是自己的病人；是否是其它牙膏品牌的推销人员有意误导等等。对于被调查者，是否切实理解了调查的意思；是否真实的表达了自己的意愿。甚至调查方法，比如回顾性研究如果追溯的年代过于久远造成数据的不真实性，失访人群过多等等。可以写的点点太多了，以至于我有点迷失了，这些所有的点点中，到底哪些是最重要的哪些是可以忽略的，请大家BS。

第三段
even if 让步
the use of SMILEBRIGHT and capped teeth means that SMILE BRIGHT causes the need for capped teeth（此句极为精妙，要好好体会。把作者给我们挖的那个坑，赤裸裸得展示出来了。没有一个废词一句废话。领会精神～大赞～）
the use of A and B means that A causes the need for B

第四段
关于他因这一段，我是膜拜的五体投地了。要是我自己写的话，死也想不到这儿去。后来想想，与其说是他因，不如说是作者在根据文中的调查数据，分析产生这个结果的可能原因。有点像我们写论文时的讨论部分。为什么用得早用得多SB的人，CT貌似也更早更多呢。那么首先，SB损坏牙齿导致CT必然是有这种可能性的，承认这种可能性会显得我们更客观，而不是挑茬挑红了眼的牛犊子。但是，还有可能是CT引起了SB（SB对于CT的人特别好。比如是CT人群术中、术后的适应人群。），又或者用SB的人群更愿意或者更倾向CT（臭美、身份钱财地位的象征）。
关于这点，除了B分析的相当精彩外，我们还可以BS一下：
两个事物，A和B，同向增多，有哪些可能性？我只想到这些，大家继续BS
1、A引起B增多（因果）坏牙齿
2、B引起A增多（因果）适应症
3、A和B相互影响甚至正反馈（非因果）比如高消费、臭美人群刚好容易选择BS和CT，甚至是他们这个圈子的流行趋势

末段：

基本上首位呼应，值得注意的是作者只提了因果关系和他因两个方面，是不是意味着，对调查本身的质疑，对一篇arg来说，无论何时，都是一个重要但决非最终要的因素呢？Jessi在思考～

（对不起B了，姗姗来迟的第四篇的作业～马不停蹄赶赴第五篇～么么～）

berninaUID: 2503038

恩 我刚才仔细看了下，是没有说这个survey是谁做的，感谢jessi

七七夕夕UID: 2753801

ls的都分析得很清晰，受益匪浅～～
个人觉得这篇范文得语言虽然简洁有力，但似乎太范文了（北美范文里都是这样得套话），要是考试时候这样写，希望不要被判雷同。
文章得思维的确值得钦佩～特别是它因性分析得那段～～每句话都意味深长。。。

不过，有一点，大家好像没有讨论到得一个它因： It might also be the case that starting with SMILEBRIGHT early in life damages the teeth so that capped teeth will be needed later.
这句话是说，早期用s牙膏的人损害了牙齿以致于后来需要capped teeth。我有点confused，因为文章的结论是不想要ct的就不要用s牙膏。如果，早期用s牙膏会损害牙齿，当然要ct啦～～不想要因为损害牙齿并ct就当然不要用s牙膏啦～～好像又被忽悠进短文的意思里面去了～～
不过鉴于有个早期，可能是指早期用会导致牙齿损害，而成年后就不会～～可是这也是我的猜想～～
希望有人解惑～～～
期待。。。