I would be really grateful if you could critique it as well! Thanks! And a question I was pondering over: Is there such a thing called too-short response for a 5/6 essay?
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a print advertisement for a dietary supplement:
"According to a recent study, professional bodybuilders who used Train & Gain, a new protein supplement, over the course of three months experienced an increase in measured strength of up to 20%. Since Train & Gain is now available without prescription at all major pharmacies, superior results are no longer limited to professional athletes. Try Train & Gain today and you too can boost your strength and achieve professional-level performance in just a few months."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The stated argument which happens to be the base of the protein supplement sales pitch is unfounded and highly misleading on at least three levels.
Firstly, the study was conducted with professional body-builders, who by their very profession are highly disciplined about their dietary habits and exercise regime. This means that their metabolism, and body-response to any dietary supplement would be very different from an average person. Since the protein supplement was administered on such a skewed subset, it directly invalidates any extrapolations that can be inferred for the general public towards whom the advertisement in directed.
Secondly,the argument fails to provide any supporting information on whether the subjects of the study were consuming any other dietary supplements or complementing their lifestyle through strength-training, exercises etc. because if that was the case then the increase in measured strength observed could not be properly attributed to just the protein supplement. Hence the argument lacks this additional information.
Thirdly, the increase in 'measured strength by 20%' is a highly vague metric.The argument does not clarify whether the 20% increase is the increase over the user's current strength levels or of a pre-defined benchmark. The argument does not even specify how it measures the strength-increase, because strength can have highly varying definitions for differing scenarios.
Hence, in light of the erroneous (or otherwise misleading) study-set, lack of sufficient information to substantiate the claim and vagueness of measurement criterion, the above argument is not well-founded.
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a print advertisement for a dietary supplement:
"According to a recent study, professional bodybuilders who used Train & Gain, a new protein supplement, over the course of three months experienced an increase in measured strength of up to 20%. Since Train & Gain is now available without prescription at all major pharmacies, superior results are no longer limited to professional athletes. Try Train & Gain today and you too can boost your strength and achieve professional-level performance in just a few months."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The stated argument which happens to be the base of the protein supplement sales pitch is unfounded and highly misleading on at least three levels.
Firstly, the study was conducted with professional body-builders, who by their very profession are highly disciplined about their dietary habits and exercise regime. This means that their metabolism, and body-response to any dietary supplement would be very different from an average person. Since the protein supplement was administered on such a skewed subset, it directly invalidates any extrapolations that can be inferred for the general public towards whom the advertisement in directed.
Secondly,the argument fails to provide any supporting information on whether the subjects of the study were consuming any other dietary supplements or complementing their lifestyle through strength-training, exercises etc. because if that was the case then the increase in measured strength observed could not be properly attributed to just the protein supplement. Hence the argument lacks this additional information.
Thirdly, the increase in 'measured strength by 20%' is a highly vague metric.The argument does not clarify whether the 20% increase is the increase over the user's current strength levels or of a pre-defined benchmark. The argument does not even specify how it measures the strength-increase, because strength can have highly varying definitions for differing scenarios.
Hence, in light of the erroneous (or otherwise misleading) study-set, lack of sufficient information to substantiate the claim and vagueness of measurement criterion, the above argument is not well-founded.
