A24 求拍！

西园寺香芷

还有两个礼拜考试了 才开始准备作文
上i次作文2.5 灰常受伤
求拍！

西园寺香芷

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　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.

西园寺香芷

预测：M市未来头痛减少
1s与a同族； 类比
2 salicacy对头痛治疗作用 商业s增加 头痛减少；相关性
2s作为香料被加到食品中；预测


A prediction is made in the passage that the residents of Menia are to suffer fewer headache in the future,based on a twenty-year study on headaches suffered by people in Mania.The study states that salicacy is the same chemical family as asprin which has a function of treating headache and there is a steady decline of headache when salicacy appears to be used more incompanies.The author also refers to a plan to add salicacy as flavor into food in many companies in ,thus contributes to a prediction of heacache declination in Mania.While the prediction seems plausible ar first glance,the fact issues are actually interpreted in a partial view that many aspects of this issue become vague and uncirtain.Further questions about these flaws are necessary for a sound conclusion.

First off, the author refers to the fact that salicacy and asprin are from the same chemical family, in order to support the conclusion that salicacy has an effect of treating headache as asprin does.However,it is doubtable if salicacy is efficient for curing headache just because it belongs to the same family as asprin.Is there any experiment that has been well conducted to prove the headache-treatment function of salicacy?At what density will it be effect?Maybe salicacy really has an effect on treatment for headache,however a tiny one ,only appears when certain density is reached or even when other confound is included.If so,the rise of salicacy may not contribute to a consequense of headache-decline for specific qualifications are not meeted.The author provide no evidence to solve the questions discussed above,therefore left the conclusion unsound.

Secondly,the author tries to indicate the salicacy’has a function for treating headache with inference of the outcome of the twenty-year study.The study claims a discovery of a correlation between the rise in the commercial use of salicacy and a steady decline in the average number of headache reported by study participants.However,the data of the study deserves doubt.Who conducted the study?Was it conducted in a scientific method?How many participants are there in the study?Did the participants report the real condition of their illness?It is likely that the number of residents they investigated is to small and they coincidently recovered as they eating food with salicacy.It is also likely that an efficient medicine they took in mitigated their headache,instead of the effect of salicacy.There’s even no data to show that the participants have taken in food contenting salicacy,for a rise in commercial use in salicacy doesn't equal to a rise in the amount people taking in it.Maybe people who suffer headache don’t like food including salicacy,thus away from it’s influence.The author failed to prove the headache-treating effect of salicacy for lacking of data to answer such questions.  

Finally,some health experts predict a headache decline in the future,for salicacy will be used more in commercial as flavor additives for foods.However, the predict is based on the study the author refers to,which proved to be invalid.In addition,even the salicacy is really useful for curing headache,are the foods produced by the local factories surely sold to local residents? Maybe they are produced to be sold to other placies for bigger markets and larger profit outside.Furthermore,The companies plan to add salicacy to their food products,then when will they acctually take it to action?After 10 month?Or 10 years?Maybe the commpany meet some finacial difficalties or find other more profitable flavor instead of salicacy,then the addition of salicacy might be delayed or canceled. With the question unsolved lacking of certain data,I truly doubt the headache in Mania will alleviate in future.

To sum up,the expert’s prediction mentioned above is not based on a convincing reasonning.Not providing enough data,important questions remains unsolved.To draw a sound and stable prediction, the questions discussed above need to be answered soundly with sufficient evidence,Othervise the argument will remain unwarranted and no conclusion can be found.

竹林中人

A prediction is made in the passage that the residents of Menia are to suffer fewer headaches in the future, based on a twenty-year study on headaches suffered by people in Mania. The study states that salicylate is of the same chemical family as aspirin which has a function of treating headache and there is a steady decline of headache when salicacy appears to be used more in companies. The author also refers to a plan to add salicacy as flavor into food in many companies in ,thus contributes to a prediction of headache declination in Mania. While the prediction seems plausible at first glance, the fact issues are actually interpreted in a partial view that many aspects of this issue become vague and uncertain. Further questions about these flaws are necessary for a sound conclusion.


First off, the author refers to the fact that salicacy and asprin are from the same chemical family, in order to support the conclusion that salicacy has an effect of treating headache as asprin does. However, it is doubtable if salicacy is efficient for curing headache just because it belongs to the same family as asprin. Is there any experiment that has been well conducted to prove the headache-treatment function of salicacy? At what density will it be effect? Maybe salicacy really has an effect on treatment for headache, however a tiny one, 这里的主语是？only appears when certain density is reached or even when other confound is included. If so, the rise of salicacy may not contribute to a consequence of headache-decline for specific qualifications are not meeted. The author provide no evidence to solve the questions discussed above,  therefore left the conclusion unsound.


Secondly, the author tries to indicate the salicacy’ has a function for treating headache with inference of the outcome of the twenty-year study. The study claims a discovery of a correlation between the rise in the commercial use of salicacy and a steady decline in the average number of headache reported by study participants. However, the data of the study deserves doubt. Who conducted the study? Was it conducted in a scientific method? How many participants are there in the study? Did the participants report the real condition of their illness? It is likely that the number of residents they investigated is too small and they coincidently recovered as they eating food with salicacy. It is also likely that an efficient medicine they took in mitigated their headache, instead of the effect of salicacy. There’s even no data to show that the participants have taken in food contenting salicacy, for a rise in commercial use in salicacy doesn't equal to a rise in the amount people taking in it. Maybe people who suffer headache don’t like food including salicacy, thus away from it’s influence. The author failed to prove the headache-treating effect of salicacy for lacking of data to answer such questions.  


Finally, some health experts predict a headache decline in the future, for salicacy will be used more in commercial as flavor additives for foods. However, the prediction is based on the study the author refers to, which proved to be invalid. In addition, even the salicacy is really useful for curing headache, are the foods produced by the local factories surely sold to local residents? Maybe they are produced to be sold to other places for bigger markets and larger profit outside. Furthermore, the companies plan to add salicacy to their food products, then when will they actually take it to action? After 10 month? Or 10 years? Maybe the company meet some financial difficulties or find other more profitable flavor instead of salicacy, then the addition of salicacy might be delayed or canceled. With the question unsolved lacking of certain data, I truly doubt the headache in Mania will alleviate in future.


To sum up, the expert’s prediction mentioned above is not based on a convincing reasoning. Not providing enough data, important questions remains unsolved. To draw a sound and stable prediction, the questions discussed above need to be answered soundly with sufficient evidence, otherwise the argument will remain unwarranted and no conclusion can be found.

竹林中人

我觉得推拉力论述的还不错啊，如果精简些紧凑些也许更好

西园寺香芷

那里主语是effect 可以这样用吗？

竹林中人

那里主语是effect 可以这样用吗？

-- by 会员 西园寺香芷 (2012/12/25 20:26:07)

但你的effect是前面的宾语啊，一个词语不可能既做主句的宾语又做从句的主语啊，必须得有引导词吧

西园寺香芷

那里主语是effect 可以这样用吗？

-- by 会员 西园寺香芷 (2012/12/25 20:26:07)

但你的effect是前面的宾语啊，一个词语不可能既做主句的宾语又做从句的主语啊，必须得有引导词吧

-- by 会员 竹林中人 (2012/12/25 21:01:26)

嗯 懂了 appears 前加引导词which就可以了吧

西园寺香芷

另外 是不是因为引用论据时解释太多 还有质疑的问题太多导致不紧凑？

竹林中人

另外 是不是因为引用论据时解释太多 还有质疑的问题太多导致不紧凑？

-- by 会员 西园寺香芷 (2012/12/27 15:45:33)

有点，问题一段里面有比较关键的一两个就足够