Topic:
"Although the multimineral Zorba pill was designed as a simple dietary supplement, a study of first-time ulcer patients who took Zorba suggests that Zorba actually helps prevent ulcers. The study showed that only 25 percent of those ulcer patients who took Zorba under a doctor's direction developed new ulcers, compared to a 75 percent recurrence rate among ulcer patients who did not take Zorba. Clearly, then, Zorba will be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers and if health experts inform the general public of this fact, many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well."
The author claims that the multimineral Zorpa pill which is actually developed as a dietary supplement is effectual in preventing ulcers and public should be made aware of this fact so they can benefit from Zorpa; also Zorpa helps in preventing first time ulcer. The conclusion rests on the following weak evidences. Firstly, it is stated that the percentage of people who develop new ulcers have decreased from approximately 75 to 25 when the patients took Zorpa. The claim is made without considering other facts that might have brought down the ulcer rate. Secondly, it assumes that a pill that was developed for a particular purpose can be used for some other purpose without worrying about the possible side-effects. Finally, it is assumed that since Zorpa helps in preventing recurrent ulcers, it can also be used to prevent first time ulcer as well without providing strong evidence for support.
The argument states that people who take Zorpa, they are less likely to develop new ulcers than people who does not take Zorpa. But it has not taken into account of the other facts that might have helped in preventing the new ulcers. People when surveyed might have changed their food habits to bring down the intensity of ulcer. Also, it is possible that they would have taken some other medicines along with Zorpa which have equal chance in preventing Ulcer as it is claimed for Zorpa. The author's claim would be valid if the patients are surveyed under specific conditions and specific food habits.
Conclusion of the argument assumes that Zorpa can be used to prevent recurrent ulcers since it has that capability. A medicine can not be prescribed just because it cures a particular ailment. Before prescribing a medicine, it has to be thoroughly tested for any side effects it might develop. The author suggests that since Zorpa has the ability to prevent recurrent ulcers, it can be used to bring down the ulcer despite the fact that it was originally designed as a dietary supplement. May be Zorpa has the power to prevent recurrent ulcers but it may introduce some other serious health problem.
The author suggests that since Zorpa prevents recurrent ulcers, it can be used to prevent first time ulcers as well. This is not a valid argument. There can be so many other factors including the food habit of people which will cause first-time ulcer. Just because it prevents recurrent ulcers it can not be taken for granted that it will cure first time ulcers as well until some strong evidences are given in support of Zorpa's efficacy in preventing first-time ulcers.
In sum, the argument relies heavily on the above stated assumptions. Omitting even one of them will weaken the author's suggestion to use Zorpa to prevent ulcer. The fact that Zorpa prevents ulcer may be true but to prove the fact, the author has to pay close attention to the assumptions made and also should present more details on how Zorpa prevents ulcer.
Who is "the author"? Why are you so concerned about him or her? Why not focus on the question at hand: Are the conclusions of the piece warranted? You focus on suggesting implausible problems with the research, which would only be possible in the unlikely event that the researchers conducting the study did not follow basic guidelines for conducting medical research. In so doing, you miss the glaring logical error at the end of the piece, where it is suggested that informing the general public of these findings will help to prevent new ulcers. In fact, the study was not relevant to the general public, but only to people who have already had ulcers.
Simone and I have a long-running disagreement on whether it is a good idea to attack the methodology of the studies referenced in prompts in this sort of essay. I say your arguments are not at all implausible, and show the sort of critical thinking that many newspapers that report on scientific studies lack. In this case, especially, the study could have as easily been paid for and conducted by Zorba as by medical researchers interested in following valid methodologies. In any event, all of the things you mention are vitally important to answering the question of whether or not the conclusions stated are warranted, as one of the conclusions is in fact that the pill is effective in fighting recurring ulcers. Also, I see no reason not to reference the author, as it is the natural way to refer back to something that has been written when the name of the writer is unknown. The notion that this is somehow a bad idea is rooted in postmodern theories that you absolutely aren't expected to know about (unless Postmodern English Literature is your main area of specialization) and would be well advised not to take seriously even if you did.
That said, we both agree, though, that the essay should also deal with the logical error usually present at the end of the prompt, which almost always involves some form of overgeneralization or unwarranted conclusion. So, while I wouldn't advise you to replace your current arguments with a discussion of that error, I would strongly urge you to add a paragraph that deals with it in detail.
Also, the prompt talks about Zorba, whereas your essay talks about Zorpa, which is odd.
