ARGUMENT 24，求批改

zhanghaolin

24. A recently issued twenty-year study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia investigated the possible therapeutic effect of consuming salicylates. Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates, food-processing companies also add salicylates to foods as preservatives. The twenty-year study found a correlation between the rise in the commercial use of salicylates and a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by study participants. At the time when the study concluded, food-processing companies had just discovered that salicylates can also be used as flavor additives for foods, and, as a result, many companies plan to do so. Based on these study results, some health experts predict that residents of Mentia will suffer even fewer headaches in the future.
(相似题目：26、28)
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.

In the argument, some health experts believe that residents of Mentia will suffer even fewer headaches in the future. They support the prediction based on the fact that the discovery of therapeutic effect of salicylates and many companies' planning that use salicylates as flavor additives. However, I am afraid the argument can hardly bear further consideration because the conclusion is made without taking account of several important questions about the effectiveness of the study and the possible factors which can also influence the number of headaches.

First and foremost, the author only mentions about that salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin without providing other persuasive evidence to prove its effectiveness in curing the headaches. As we know, even though chemicals in the same family can have very different chemical nature or different side effects when taken by human. For example, a hundred years ago, there was a material called tartaric acid which was discovered to have effects to cure heart disease by the researchers. But the products which contain tartaric acids in the market lead a lot of serious side effects even death. After researching, the scientists find the reason is that because of the negligence of researchers, there were some other materials which belong to the same family of tartaric acids produced during the production process. This kind of material has serious side effects to human even though it is very similar to tartaric acid. So, the researchers should make a hasty conclusion because materials in the same family might not have the same effects.

Furthermore, it is reasonable for us to ask whether the study is comprehensive and objective. Since it is a two decades study and the researchers do not provide information such as the change of population or age structure. There might be other possible reasons ignored by researchers in the study. For instance, if the working pressure was reduced obviously or living environment in Mentia has been improved vastly, the author cannot attribute the reduction of headaches simply to the increasing consumption of salicylates. Furthermore, the study only uses the data from the report of headaches, which is unsound because there might be people who did not report their headaches. In addition, the researchers do not provide information about the relationship between the consumption level of study participants and the number of headaches, which leads the fact unsound evidence to directly prove the effectiveness of salicylates.

To sum up, after pointing out so many obvious flaws in the argument, we can say that the evidence cited by the authors can hardly be relied on. Not only can we query the effectiveness of salicylates in curing the headaches, but also we will ask the comprehensiveness of the study. In addition, the author should answer that whether there are other possible factors changed in twenty years that result the reduction of headaches. Before answering the foregoing questions, the authors should not reach a conclusion in hasty.

普渡哥

作者的这个模板用的很熟练：）

zzhangji

以前写过argument， 感觉不是这样写的吧，

我认为要多写反驳，多写驳斥的可能性，比如，是由于其他原因引起的头疼的减少，生活环境（作者已经提到），生活压力，而非药物。
2，即使是药物引起的，也不能说放在食物中就能有相同的效果，也许这样的药物是要在特殊的环境下才有效果，也许作为食物的添加会影响药效。也许会给人带来副作用？
3，即使公司加入这样的药物，也不一定是和专家说的会下降，也许人们觉得药物在食物中不安全，也许有人家里有小孩，觉得这样会伤害孩子的健康不买，反而会使得商品销售下降，与未来头疼下降一点关系也没有。

konatsu

1、没有切中写作要求，除了开头最后一句，论述段落完全没有questions。
2、salicylates与aspirin应该作为一句背景介绍，研究是针对salicylates，而不是aspirin，不需要攻击。而且argument不需要举例论证吧，这是issue做的事。
3、furthermore里面还有furthermore....一段里面可以用firstly, secondly这种简单一点的。
4、列举头疼减少的他因很有针对性，但攻击study数据的全面性属于力度比较弱，因为study在题目中不是主要部分，着重点在能不能有力论证比较好。

参考思路~~
题目逻辑：study发现S多头疼少＋food公司计划用S作additive-->头疼会减少

提纲：
1）头疼减少真的是因为S的使用增加吗？study中只发现S使用和头疼减少的相关关系correlation，因果关系不一定成立：可能因为环境变好、生活质量变好、医疗服务变好；另外没有考虑participants的S摄入量。
2）就算S有效，加入更多的S就能使头疼进一步减少吗？可能会带来副作用，引起人们的担忧，减少购买量，起不到S摄入增加的效果。

想不到更多了><...不过展开得充分的话也差不多...