Argument38 第一篇argument 有拍必回！多谢指教！

灵感女孩UID: 2224424

Prompt:

The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.
"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises tosignificantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A studyreports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high,people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatmentof colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can preventcolds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absencesfrom school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, anutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to preventcolds and lower absenteeism."


Based on the ungrounded assumption and dubious evidence, the editorial of the West Meria Public Health Council draws the conclusion that daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, can help prevent colds and thus lower absenteeism. To substantiate this conclusion, the editorial claims that colds account for most incidences of absenteeism and points out the evidence that in the nearby East Meria, due to high consumption of fish, people seldom visit hospitals for the treatment of colds. At first glance, this argument appears to somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in the argument. From the logical perspective, this argument suffers from several logical flaws.

To begin with, the editorial falsely equates the concepts of getting cold with visiting the doctor. There is no evidence that people will necessarily go to hospitals once they catch a cold. Factors such as high medical expense and inconvenient traffic conditions in East Meria might prevent people from visiting the doctor, making the rate lower than it actually is. Even assuming the rate of visiting doctors in East Meria is indeed as low as the editorial reports, he fails to establish the causal relationship between the fact that people in East Meria seldom catch colds and the claim that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. This argument is unacceptable unless there is compelling evidence to support the connection between these two events. Perhaps, for example, in East Meria, the fact that people catch colds only once or twice a year is the result of good habits of life, such as doing exercises every day. It is also likely that good weather condition in East Meria prevents people from getting colds.

Next, even if there indeed exhibits a strong correlation between low rate of getting colds and eating fish, the editorial makes a false analogy between East Merica and West Meria. There is no garantee that the "successful" case in East Meria will be effective in West Meria as well, since the two places might poccess very different geographic conditions such as weather and environment, and different health conditions of the residents themselves.

Furthermore, even assuming that the case in East Merica, namely, eating fish can prevent people from getting colds, can apply to West Meria, the editorial again, falsely equates Ichthaid with fish, assuming that it is Ichthiad, one kind of nutritional supplement derived from the fish oil, is the element that prevents colds. The editorial does not provide any evidence to justify this assumption. It is very likely that other nutritional elements in the fish are the causes that prevent colds.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out that the editorial fails to consider other possible causes of absenteeism. Absences from work and school might result from factors such as bad traffic condition, emergencies or simply the unwillingness of going to work or school. Without ruling out these and other alternative explanations for absenteeism, the editorial cannot reasonably infer that it is colds that prevent people from going to work or school.

To sum up, the editorial fails to substantiate his claim that daily use of Ichthaid will prevent colds and thus lower absenteeism, because the evidence cited in this analysis does not level strong support to what the editorial maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the editorial should have to provide more information to verify that it is Ichthaid in fish that is effective in preventing cold instead of other nutritional elements. Additionally, he would have to make a more comprehensive and thorough investigation to demonstrate that there indeed exists a correlation between the prevention of cold and the effectiveness of eating fish. To better assess the recommendation made by the editorial, I would also need to know the reasons of absenteeism and whether colds account for most of the causes of it. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more insightful and logically acceptable.

虎19860119UID: 2613000

首先，祝贺你迈出了勇敢的第一步！
其次，俺说一句吧。这应该是典型的北美范文行文风格吧，可以先这样练习着，不过最终还是要形成自己的文风！加油吧！
多多练习！

chenheng0528UID: 2610515

Based on the ungrounded assumption and dubious evidence, the editorial of the West Meria Public Health Council draws the conclusion that daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, can help prevent colds and thus lower absenteeism. To substantiate this conclusion, the editorial claims that colds account for most incidences of absenteeism and points out the evidence that in the nearby East Meria, due to high consumption of fish, people seldom visit hospitals for the treatment of colds.（两个原因颠倒一下顺序好不好，先是E地区消费鱼不感冒，然后因为感冒是请假的重要原因） At first glance, this argument appears to somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in the argument. From the logical perspective, this argument suffers from several logical flaws.（和前面稍有意思重复，既然字数够就去掉吧）

To begin with, the editorial falsely equates the concepts of getting cold with visiting the doctor. There is no evidence that people will necessarily go to hospitals once they catch a cold. Factors such as high medical expense and inconvenient traffic conditions in East Meria might prevent people from visiting the doctor, making the rate lower than it actually is. Even assuming the rate of visiting doctors in East Meria is indeed as low as the editorial reports, he fails to establish the causal relationship between the fact that people in East Meria seldom catch colds and the claim that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. This argument is unacceptable unless there is compelling evidence to support the connection between these two events. Perhaps, for example, in East Meria, the fact that people catch colds only once or twice a year is the result of good habits of life, such as doing exercises every day. It is also likely that good weather condition in East Meria prevents people from getting colds.(我认为这段展开的不错）

Next, even if there indeed exhibits a strong correlation between low rate of getting colds and eating fish, the editorial makes a false analogy between East Merica and West Meria. There is no garantee that the "successful" case in East Meria will be effective in West Meria as well, since the two places might poccess very different geographic conditions such as weather and environment, and different health conditions of the residents themselves.（这段可以加几句解释，扩展一下。比如E地区的温度变化不大，人不容易感冒；比如E地区的人吸收鱼的营养形成抗体，而W地区的人吃了鱼也可能没有做用）

Furthermore, even assuming that the case in East Merica, namely, eating fish can prevent people from getting colds, can apply to West Meria, the editorial again, falsely equates Ichthaid with fish, assuming that it is Ichthiad, one kind of nutritional supplement derived from the fish oil, is the element that prevents colds. The editorial does not provide any evidence to justify this assumption. It is very likely that other nutritional elements in the fish are the causes that prevent colds.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out that the editorial fails to consider other possible causes of absenteeism. Absences from work and school might result from factors such as bad traffic condition, emergencies or simply the unwillingness of going to work or school. Without ruling out these and other alternative explanations for absenteeism, the editorial cannot reasonably infer that it is colds that prevent people from going to work or school.（基本错误都找出来了）

To sum up, the editorial fails to substantiate his claim that daily use of Ichthaid will prevent colds and thus lower absenteeism, because the evidence cited in this analysis does not level strong support to what the editorial maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the editorial should have to provide more information to verify that it is Ichthaid in fish that is effective in preventing cold instead of other nutritional elements. Additionally, he would have to make a more comprehensive and thorough investigation to demonstrate that there indeed exists a correlation between the prevention of cold and the effectiveness of eating fish. To better assess the recommendation made by the editorial, I would also need to know the reasons of absenteeism and whether colds account for most of the causes of it. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more insightful and logically acceptable.

楼主的语言没的说（比我的好多了）。第一篇就可以写的这么成形，楼主的基本功还是不错的。
就象楼上说的，有模板的痕迹（呵呵，我也是），如果马上就要考了就不用考虑改了。如果时间超过2周，可以重新写一个自己的结构，去掉中间的那些明显连词，而用句与句间的逻辑关系来联接。

Argument51  (请帮我也看一下） https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=989291&extra=

灵感女孩UID: 2224424

首先，祝贺你迈出了勇敢的第一步！
其次，俺说一句吧。这应该是典型的北美范文行文风格吧，可以先这样练习着，不过最终还是要形成自己的文风！加油吧！
多多练习！
虎19860119 发表于 2009-7-28 08:17

谢谢提醒 还需多多练习~ 这个模板其实是新东方的那一套~ 我也感觉有点生硬 不过第一次写 做个参照~

DivineUID: 2650173

昨天才上完新东方，所以这么晚回复 抱歉~
第一篇已经能熟练运用新东方的模板，很不错了 主要谬误都阐述清楚了
几个小问题
1 第三段可以再充分展开一下
2 倒数第二段说到cold不是唯一原因，但文中提到它是主要原因
因此可以考虑这样攻击 most frequently到底是占百分之多少？
人们give the reason时是否说了实话？ 来质疑真正因为感冒而缺席的比例
否则全文都用他因法，句型又相似，考官可能会审美疲劳~
我的第一篇argument楼主指教下吧
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... age=1#pid1773026855