In this argument ,the arguer concludes that a diet rich in dairy products may increase,instead of decreasing the risk of osteoporosis,alluding that we should limit the consume of such products for healths sake,To support this conclusion, the arguer cites the result of a study that those who have consisitantly consumed dairy products are more vulnerable than others to bone fracture,and fracture is a symptom of osteoporosis,hence more vulnerable to osteoporosis.It seems reasonable at first glance,a close examination with it ,however,will reveal several inherent flaws of it. In the first place, the argument is based on a gratuitous assumption that osteoporosis equals bone fracture, which is unwarranted.As we know; there may be alternative reasons such as sports and traffic accidents that cause bone fracture. Unless a convincing survey with the reasons of bone fractures of the individuals involved in the study is proposed that all fractures are caused by osteoporosis,the study will lend little support to the argument for its own representiveness is suspected. In addition, the arguer fails to takes into account the age, hobby and other relevant background of the individuals who participated the study.It is not just diary products that matter.Its possible, even probably, that those who like mounting as well as diary products.Its obvious that those climbers are more vulnerable to bone fracture, how can we owe the fracture to the diary products that he ate in the morning? Finally,the arguer ignores other factors such as genes,surroundings and habits that may have some bearings on osteoporosis,To trace the causes of osteoporosis to any single reason is to be miss the wood for the trees. To sum up, the argument is unconvincing due to several reasons state above .To Strength the argument, the arguer should establish a causal relation between osteoporosis and bone fracture, to make the argument more cogent, the arguer should initiate a survey with those people to determine that if the diary products are the genuine reason for fracture.Unless the arguer do these, the argument is not acceptable.
在这场争论中，论述者得出结论，富含奶制品的饮食可能会增加，而不是减少骨质疏松的风险，暗示我们应该限制为了健康的消费类产品，为了支持这一结论，论述者援引了一项研究，那些有consisitantly食用奶制品的人比其他人更脆弱在骨折的结果，和骨折是骨质疏松症的症状之一，因此更容易患骨质疏松症。它似乎是合理的第一眼，仔细检查它，然而，它将揭示一些内在的缺陷。首先，这个论点是基于一个错误的假设，骨质疏松症等于骨折，这是毫无根据的。正如我们所知道的；有可能是其他原因如运动和交通事故造成的骨折。除非对参与研究的人骨折的原因提出了令人信服的调查，所有的骨折是骨质疏松症引起的，该研究将为自己的代表性论点，借点支持被怀疑。此外，作者没有考虑到年龄，爱好和个人参与研究的相关背景。这不仅仅是奶制品的问题。这是可能的，即使可能，那些喜欢以及奶制品安装。很明显，那些登山者更容易发生骨断裂，我们如何能欠骨折对奶制品，他早上吃了吗？最后，作者忽略了其他因素如基因，环境和习惯，可能对骨质疏松有轴承，追踪引起骨质疏松的原因于任何单一的原因是错过了木材的树木。综上所述，由于几个原因状态上面的论证是不能令人信服的。力量的论点，论证者应该建立骨质疏松和骨折之间的因果关系，使论证更有说服力，作者应该主动与那些人来确定的，如果日记产品断裂的真正原因调查。除非通过做这些，争论是不可接受的。