GRE作文范文 Argument-16

"Typically, as people age, their bone mass decreases, making them more vulnerable to bone fractures. A recent study concludes that the most effective way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life is to take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily. The three-year study followed a group of French women in their eighties who were nursing-home residents. The women were given daily supplements of twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium. In addition, the women participated in a light weightlifting program. After three years, these women showed a much lower rate of hip fractures than is average for their age."

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the most effective way of reducing the risk of bone fractures in later life is to take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily. To support this conclusion, the arguer cites a three-year study of French nursing home resident women in their eighties who were given daily supplements of twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium. In this study, the women also participated in a light weightlifting program and showed a much lower than average rate of hip fractures for their age. Looking closely at the argument reveals that it is based on faulty reasoning and fails to deliver on its premise.

The most obvious and glaring defect in the reasoning behind this argument is the fact that this study was based on French women who were already residents of a nursing home. Nursing homes are very well protected environments, particularly when it comes to the problem of the elderly falling, as this is a well known and common problem. Strict safety precautions are in place to protect nursing home residents from falling, including the widespread use of walkers and wheelchairs, as well as generously and appropriately placed handrails to assist with moving about. The arguer attempts to attribute the much lower rate of hip fractures to the higher doses of vitamin D and calcium, but it is much more likely that the average rate is lower because the residents are better protected from falling and hurting themselves in the first place.

Additionally, the arguer fails to account for the obvious health benefits generated by the light weightlifting program. Weight training helps to strengthen both bone and muscle, leading to a more physically fit body with better balance and stamina. A more fit physique leads to fewer health problems by likely keeping the women from falling in the first place, and if they should fall, better muscle tone and mass could also better protect the underlying bones. It is highly likely that the weight-training program itself led to more health benefits than the double dose of vitamin D and calcium. By failing to address the likely contributions of the light weightlifting program, the arguer has failed to convey a convincing argument.

Furthermore, the study addresses only French people, only women and only those in their eighties. The arguer's conclusion states that "the most effective way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life" is by doubling the daily dose of calcium and vitamin D, meaning all people in later life, including men. The study did not have any male participants, nor did it have anyone under or over the ages of eighty to eighty-nine or from any other countries. Even assuming the validity of the study, there is no direct evidence of the fracture reducing benefits of increasing the dosage of vitamin D and calcium in anyone other than French women in their eighties in nursing homes. Additionally, the study only mentions hip fractures - it does not address any other types of bone fractures. Without such cause and effect evidence for other people and other bones in the body, the argument remains unconvincing.

In summary, the argument fails to convince by offering weak evidence that does not support the arguer's conclusion that the most effective way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life is to take two times the regular dose of vitamin D and calcium everyday. Even assuming that the study does demonstrate that it helps, there is nothing in the argument or the study that shows that it is the most effective way of doing so. Without such direct causal evidence, the study itself does not support the arguer's premise.

(622 words)

參考譯文

普遍而言，隨著人們?nèi)遮吽ダ?，他們的骨質(zhì)會(huì)減少，使其更易于招致骨折。一項(xiàng)近期的研究結(jié)論是，晚年生活中減少骨折風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的最有效方法是每日服用兩倍于大夫建議的維生素D和鈣。此項(xiàng)為期三年的研究追蹤了一組年屆八旬的法國(guó)婦女，她們均為私人療養(yǎng)院居民。這些婦女每天均被給予兩倍于大夫建議的維生素D和鈣劑量的補(bǔ)充藥物。此外，這些婦女還參加了一項(xiàng)輕微的舉重計(jì)劃。三年之后，這些婦女顯示出了比其年齡段平均發(fā)病率遠(yuǎn)低得多的臀部骨折

在本項(xiàng)論述中，論述者的結(jié)論是，晚年生活中減少骨折的最有效方法是每日服用兩倍于大夫所建議的維生素D和鈣劑量。為了支持其結(jié)論，論述者援引了一項(xiàng)為期三年的對(duì)法國(guó)某私人療養(yǎng)院年屆八旬的女性居民所作的研究。在該項(xiàng)研究中，這些婦女每日被給予兩倍于大夫建議的維生素D和鈣劑量。這些婦女也參加一項(xiàng)輕微的舉重計(jì)劃，并顯示出比其年齡段平均發(fā)病率低得多的臀部骨折。對(duì)這一論述細(xì)加推敲便會(huì)表明，它所依據(jù)的完全是錯(cuò)誤的推理，無(wú)法為其命題提供充分的依據(jù)。

在該論點(diǎn)所隱含的推理中，最明顯和最引人注目的謬誤莫進(jìn)于這樣一個(gè)事實(shí)，即這一研究是基于早已成為某一私人療養(yǎng)所居民的法國(guó)婦女。私人療養(yǎng)所是一些有著非常完善保護(hù)設(shè)施的環(huán)境，尤其是在涉及到老年人摔倒這方面，因?yàn)檫@是一個(gè)眾所周知和甚為普遍的問(wèn)題。嚴(yán)格的安全防范措施十分到位，用以保護(hù)私人療養(yǎng)院居民免遭摔跌之苦，包括廣泛使用步行輔助器以及輪椅，以及在各處慷慨而又恰當(dāng)?shù)卦O(shè)置扶手來(lái)幫助行走。該論述者試圖將較低水平的臀部骨折歸諸于這些居民服用高劑量的維生素D和鈣。但是情況很有可能是，療養(yǎng)院中之所以平均骨折發(fā)生率較低，首先是因?yàn)檫@里的居民針對(duì)摔倒和受傷已獲得了較為完善的防護(hù)。

此外，該論述者也沒(méi)能說(shuō)清楚輕微的舉重計(jì)劃所產(chǎn)生的明顯健康作用。舉重訓(xùn)練有助于增強(qiáng)人們的骨骼和肌肉，導(dǎo)致鍛煉者身體狀況得以改善，獲得更好的平衡能力以及耐力。較佳的體質(zhì)可導(dǎo)致較少的健康問(wèn)題，因?yàn)槭紫冗@樣的體質(zhì)可使那些婦女不會(huì)隨便摔倒，并且，即使她們真的摔倒的話，較好的肌肉張力及肌肉塊也可以更好地保護(hù)位于下面的骨頭。情況很有可能是舉重訓(xùn)練計(jì)劃本身，而不是兩倍劑量的維生素D和鈣，給女性居民們帶來(lái)了更多的健康作用。由于沒(méi)能探討輕微的舉重訓(xùn)練計(jì)劃有可能帶來(lái)的裨益，該論述者便沒(méi)能傳遞出一個(gè)令人信服的論點(diǎn)。

再者，該項(xiàng)研究只涉及法國(guó)人，只涉及婦女，并且只涉及年已八旬的婦女。該論述者在結(jié)論中陳述道："在人們晚年生活中減少骨折風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的最有效方法"是每日服用兩倍的鈣與維生素D劑量。這里，論述者指的是進(jìn)入晚年生活的所有的人，包括男性。該項(xiàng)研究并沒(méi)有包括男性參與者，也沒(méi)有包含任何80-89歲這一年齡段之上或之下的任何其他人，或來(lái)自任何其他國(guó)家的人。即使假定該項(xiàng)研究的有效性，也沒(méi)有任何直接的論據(jù)來(lái)證明，除了私人療養(yǎng)院中的八旬法國(guó)婦女外，任何人服用較大劑量的維生素D和鈣會(huì)有利于減少骨折。此外，該項(xiàng)研究?jī)H僅提及臀部骨折--它沒(méi)能探討任何其他類型的骨折。如果沒(méi)有就其他人或就體內(nèi)的其它骨頭提供因果證據(jù)，該論點(diǎn)依然無(wú)法令人信服。

概而言之，該論點(diǎn)不能達(dá)到說(shuō)服人的作用，因?yàn)樗岢龅纳鯙楸∪醯淖C據(jù)根本就無(wú)法來(lái)支持論述者的結(jié)論，即人們晚年生活中減少骨折風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的最有效方法是每天服用兩倍于正常劑量的維生素D和鈣。即使我們假定該項(xiàng)研究確實(shí)能證明這一做法有益處，該項(xiàng)論述或研究中還是沒(méi)有任何證據(jù)能證明這一做法是減少骨折的最有效的方法。沒(méi)有這種直接的因果證據(jù)，該項(xiàng)研究無(wú)法來(lái)支持論述者的命題。