Argument 76

The following appeared as part of an article in a health and beauty magazine."
A group of volunteers participated in a study of consumer responses to the new Luxess face cream. Every morning for a month, they washed their faces with mild soap and then applied Luxess. At the end of that month, most volunteers reported a marked improvement in the way their skin looked and felt. Thus it appears that Luxess is truly effective in improving the condition of facial skin."

学生原稿

In this article, the author asserts that Luxess face cream (LFC) is truly effective in improving the condition of facial skin. To support his claim, he bases on a study in which volunteers use LFC after they wash their faces with mild soap for a month. Most of them reported that their skin quality is improved. It seems reasonable at the first glance, yet the effect of LFC is not so convincing as the author thought.

To begin with, he provides insufficient evidence that the cited study on which the argument depends is persuasive. It is unfairly to draw a conclusion that LFC is effective in ameliorating the condition of facial skin if these volunteers are merely some dozens of people or even less. Probably, LFC is only suitable to these volunteers. However, it may not effective to all the customers as a whole. Others might benefit nothing from LFC. Under such circumstances, this study is neither adequate in number nor representative of the overall customers.

Moreover, the effect needs to be reconsidered. Since it is from the volunteers’ opinions instead of specialists’ in this area, possibly, the result is not correct. On one hand, the improvement the volunteers feel might be due to psychological perception. Because they employ new and advanced product, might called by LFC producer, and always hope to have better facial skin, after a month, they falsely think their skin become better. On the other hand, these volunteers might be the acquaintance of LFC owners’, or they are paid by LFC company for the advertising purpose. Consequently they are more likely to report the result on the LFC company’s behalf.

Even if this study is statistically reliable, and volunteers’ facial skin is truly improved, there are also some flaws in his argument. An obvious one is that he relies on an unproven case-and-effect relationship between the improvement of facial skin and LFC. There may be other reasons contributing to the improvement. The author mentions that volunteers use mild soap before LFC. Among all possible alternative factors should mild soap not be overlooked. Maybe these volunteers usually use comparatively harsher soap in the past, but now under the guidance of LFC company, they switch to a milder type. So mild soap may help make facial skin felt and looked better. Without ruling out the function of mild soap, hardly can the author substantiate only LFC accounts for the effect. Besides, in this month, they may also coincidentally use superdefense products which probably contribute to the skin amelioration the most.

Now we can see how unconvincing this argument is from the analyses above. To strengthen his claim, he must tell us the number of volunteers surveyed and how they are selected. Also, he should invite arbitration specialists in this area to evaluate the effect of LFC. As for the point about whether LFC sure is the main factor, he would have guaranteed all of the alternative reasons are ruled out. Lacking crucial information about these, I definitely disagree whit the author.

钱老师点评修改稿

In this article, the author asserts that Luxess face cream (LFC) is truly effective in improving the condition of the facial skin. To support his claim, he bases his argument on a study in which volunteers use LFC after they wash their faces with mild soap for a month. Most of them reported that their skin quality is improved. The argument seems reasonable only in appearance but not in effect as it is guilty of some of the most glaring logical fallacies.

To begin with, he provides insufficient evidence that the cited study on which the argument depends is persuasive. It is unfair to draw a conclusion that LFC is effective in ameliorating the condition of facial skin if these volunteers consist merely of some dozens of people or even fewer. Probably, LFC is only suitable to these volunteers. However, it may not be effective to all the customers as a whole. Others might benefit nothing from LFC. (This sentence is redundant!) Under such circumstances, this study is neither adequate in number nor representative of the overall customers.

Moreover, the effect needs to be reconsidered. Since it is from the volunteers’ opinions instead of specialists’ in this area, possibly, the result is not correct. On one hand, the improvement the volunteers feel might be due to psychological perception. Because they use what might called by LFC producer as a new and advanced product and they are overanxious to have better facial skin, after a month the volunteers self-deceptively think their skin have become better. On the other hand, these volunteers might be the acquaintances of the LFC producer, or they are paid by LFC company for the advertising purpose. Consequently they are more likely to report the result to the advantage of the LFC company.

Even if this study is statistically reliable and volunteers’ facial skin is truly improved, there are also some other flaws in the argument. An obvious one is that he relies on an unproven case-and-effect relationship between the improvement of facial skin and LFC. There may be other reasons contributing to the improvement. The author mentions that volunteers use mild soap before LFC. Mild soap should not be overlooked as one of the possible alternative factors in skin condition improvement. Maybe these volunteers usually use comparatively harsher soap in the past, but now under the guidance of LFC company, they switch to a milder type. So mild soap may help make facial skin feel and look better. Without ruling out the role of the mild soap, the author can hardly substantiate that only LFC accounts for the improved effect. In addition, during that particular month, they may also be coincidentally using super defense products(?) which probably contribute to the skin amelioration the most. (This sentence is difficult to understand and it is useless too.

Now we can see how unconvincing this argument is from the analyses above. To strengthen his claim, he must tell us the number of volunteers surveyed and how they are selected. Also, he should invite arbitration specialists in this area to evaluate the effect of LFC. As for the point about whether LFC is indeed the main factor in skin condition improvement, he would have to make sure that all the alternative factors are ruled out. Lacking crucial information about these, I definitely disagree with the author.

钱老师点评

进行反驳时，最重大的，最能从根本上推翻原立论的理由应该放在最前面。在我看来，结论中“that Luxess is truly effective”和所提供的数据 “most volunteers reported a marked improvement ”之间是有矛盾的。“Truly”一词应该暗示100％的、彻底的、全面的、无条件的。但研究中只是most volunteers 觉得effective，因此，肯定小部分人(minority)u并不感到Luxess是truly effective的 如果作者不是这样以点带面，偷换概念，则那部分minority的实验结果就可以推翻原来的结论。

　　在我看来，Luxess与mild soap联合使用才能产生作用是其第二大致命的谬误。这里，在主题句中应该抓住关键概念。你可以这样写：“作者在结论中将improvement in the condition of facial skin完全归诸于LFC，但我们发现LFC使用中这样一个细节，即volunteers首先使用mild soap。换言之，LFC的作用不是绝对的(absolute)，而是相对的(relative)或者有条件的(conditional)。如果没有mild soap, Luxess可能就不会使人feel or look better 了。更有可能，Luxess在改善facial skin 的 condition 方面一点也不effective，而是mild soap在起着作用。也有可能，当mild soap与Luxess合用时，是mild soap起更大的作用，Luxess只是起着微弱的作用而己。这样，对于不知道将Luxess与mild soap搭配使用，或者是无力购买mild soap,或者使用了coarse soap的人来说，Luxess就不可能是truly effective。”

　　你在 “Moreover”一段中写的内容是站不住脚的。你的论点是, 因为volunteers用了新产品，因此，这种心理上的暗示可能让他们觉得skin condition得到improved.但你必须记住，还是有一部分minority的人尽管使用了新产品，但没有任何心理暗示让他们觉得有改善呀。而且你将这些volunteers说成是LFC的“托儿”也有污蔑他人的嫌疑，因为这些minority显然就不是“托儿”。另外，即使是arbitration specialists也不一定是绝对的权威的，他们也有可能成为被买通的“托儿”。

　　第三方面你能写的是volunteers的构成(composition)。你可以对该项研究受试者的取样(sampling)提出质疑。你可以说，“作者只是统笼地说a group of volunteers参加了测试，而没有指出这些volunteers的性别，年龄段，以及种族。我们知道, skin condition是个非常复杂的问题，不同性别、年龄段、种族、职业、阶层的人，其skin conditions会大不相同。只有当Luxess 应用于many groups of volunteers的时候, 而不是一个有限的group的时候，其作用才能得到普遍验证。该study中的volunteers可能只是30-40岁之间的白人职业女性，这样，Luxess对40-50岁之间从事建筑行业的黑人男性就可能根本不effective.因此，under such circumstances，this study in neither adequate in number or representative of the overall customers.”请注意，在这一段中，当你说 “probably, LFC in only suitable to these volunteers. However, it may not be effective to all the customers as a whole”的时候，你自己只是做出了一个笼统的论断，没有列举出具体的原因来说明Luxess为什么不能对all the customers as a whole 适用。因此, 你的反驳显得软弱无力.

　　你可以用我点评中第一、第二和第四这三段内容来作为你文章的主体，将你原文中的第三段删除。请注意，我点评的那三段在其重要性的先后排列上是最合理的。当然，如果采用我的那三段作为主体，你原文的最后一段也相应作出修改。

　　文章中还有较多的语法错误和若干句法错误，我己经将它们纠正或重写了。你有二处用了倒装句，但这二处实际上是没有必要用倒装句的。

学生基钱老师点评的修改稿

（虽然客户的第二稿中还存在若干语法错误，但写作思路却己调整得差不多了。）

In this article, the author asserts that Luxess face cream (LFC) is truly effective in improving the condition of the facial skin. To support his claim, he bases his argument on the reports of volunteers that their facial skin has gained a marked improvement, since they began using LFC after washing their faces with mild soap a month ago. The argument seems reasonable only in appearance but not in effect as it is guilty of some of the most glaring logical fallacies.

To begin with, the author draws a hasty conclusion. If LFC were truly effective, as the author concludes, all of the volunteers would report an improvement. But he tells us only part of the volunteers, the major, report that their facial skin gains a remarkable improvement. How about the rest? If the rest do not have any improvement, should he assert that LFC is truly effective? Besides, most is a vague concept, and he should tell the exact percent of these volunteers who have a remarkable improvement. If most means 99 percent, it is reasonable for him to get such a conclusion. But if most equals to 60 percent, his conclusion is entirely unconvincing. Without taking every volunteer into account, he draws a hasty conclusion.

Another fatal flaw in this argument is that he groundlessly ascribes the facial skin amelioration only to the effect of LFC. Since these volunteers use mild soap before LFC, mild soap should not be overlooked. The improvement, if any, might be from mild soap only, or LFC only, or both. Maybe these volunteers usually use comparatively harsher soap in the past, but now under the guidance of LFC company, they switch to a milder type. It is completely possible that the mild soap rather than LFC that make facial skin feel and look better. Or mild soap is an integral factor in helping LFC work. Without ruling out the role of mild soap, the author fails to substantiate that only LFC accounts for the effect.

In addition, the cited study on which the argument depends is unpersuasive. Even if LFC single-handedly make volunteers facial skin feel and look better, it is unfair to draw a conclusion that LFC is truly effective in ameliorating the condition of facial skin, if these volunteers consist merely of some dozens of people or even fewer. Also, he does not show how these volunteers are selected. Probably they are all white ladies around 25 years old, and LFC is only suitable to them. As for old black males, it may be absolutely useless. People have different races, ages and genders, thus the properties of their skin differ in many respects. So he mistakenly thinks if LFC is effective to some people, it will also effective to all the customers as a whole. Under such circumstances, the cited study is neither adequate in number nor representative of the overall customers.

Now we can see how unconvincing this argument is from the analyses above. To strengthen his claim, all of the volunteers instead of most of them should have a remarkable improvement to their facial skin. Whether LFC is indeed the main factor in skin condition improvement, he should have to make sure that the function of mild soap is ruled out. Also, the cited study must be proved to be adequate in number and representative of the overall customers. Without crucial information about these, I hardly agree with the author.