标题: 第一次写ARGUMENT请大家点评下，谢谢，2月16日考试拉~ [打印本页] 作者: loveysilly 时间: 2011-2-9 18:39 标题: 第一次写ARGUMENT请大家点评下，谢谢，2月16日考试拉~ AA A16 A16. The following appeared in an article from a health magazine. “In a yearlong clinical trial of Mi-Quell, a new medicine for treating migraine headaches, researchers observed no significant side effects during the first five months. After six months, however, 20 percent of the subjects in the clinical trial began to report dizziness. Furthermore, during the final six months of the clinical trial, 43 of the subjects fell at least once and 18 were involved in automobile accidents. Such data indicate that Mi-Quell should be used to treat migraine headaches for up to six months, but after that time period doctors should prescribe another medicine.”
我的文章阿！~
In the argument, based on a research result from a one-year clinical trial of Mi-Quell, the author concludes that the medicine for treating migraine headaches is only suitable for a 6-month treatment. Because of a side effect that brought by the medicine as dizziness, this medicine should be replaced with another medicine after 6 months.However, it is too rush for the author to make such a conclusion based on the limited information.
The threshold reason is that the data used in the argument is not convincing.There is no resource for the clinical trial.No where, who, how, or when the research is conducted.Without showing the statistical reliability of the clinical trial, it is not suitable to get any conclusion.The author should show a strict attitude regarding to a research result, especially on medicine.For example, the argument talks about 20% of the subjects in the clinical trial began to report dizziness after six month.But because the total respondent number is never showed in the argument, we can not say 20% is large enough to provide the statistical significance.Maybe 20% is only a small number.And without any norm data as benchmark, maybe 20% is a small percentage compared with other medicine treatment.Besides that, who are the respondents, male of female?How old are they or where they lived.Lacking of this kind of information, we can not accept the recommendation.
Secondly, there is causal fallacy in the argument.It is mentioned that "43 of the subjects fell at least once and 18 were involved in automobile accidents".However, perhaps all the respondents live in a mountain, they have to clime up and down everyday or they live in a high traffic accident rate cities, the data for falling or accident could not be the evidence which equal to "Dizziness".
Finally, even all the facts in the argument are true, we can not analogy the result to all the patients in the future.The causes for migraine headaches are quite different, and it might be caused by all kinds of reasons.We can not simplify them, and benchmark with this clinical trial result.Different disease causes might outweigh the similarities, so we can not accept the result.
Based on above analysis, there are so many flaws in this argument, which can not get us convinced about the recommendation.It would be better if the author lists down the data resource, and provide more background information about the disease to get a scientific recommendation.作者: 风摆依依 时间: 2011-2-10 12:54
我也是16号，也是刚练，一起加油吧~作者: loveysilly 时间: 2011-2-10 13:19
加油哦！作者: maomaohanxu 时间: 2011-2-11 14:28
我也是16号... 也是昨天开始写的...作者: rebeccablote 时间: 2011-2-11 16:46
建议多读范文找写作语感和结构感。分析问题要直接切入，不过过多泛泛而谈重复一个意思。句法语法需要改进
The threshold reason is that the data used in the argument is not convincing.There is no resource for the clinical trial.No where, who, how, or when the research is conducted.Without showing the statistical reliability of the clinical trial, it is not suitable to get any conclusion.The author should show a strict attitude regarding to a research result, especially on medicine.
你以上3行，我可以简介总结成以下一句。 First of all, the author didn't provide enough demographic info on the focus group: the sample size, age range and gender mix.
