ISSUE144 & ARGUMENT168

TOPIC: ISSUE144 - "It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value."
*a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc.
WORDS: 509 TIME: 00:45:00 DATE: 2008/8/11 23:38:39

The artist and critic is a couple of people who cannot live without each other. The artist creates the arts and the critic let all the people realize the value of them. However, does the artist or the critic give society something of lasting value?

To begin with, the creativity and obscurity are two characteristics of art. Unlike the scientist improve or develop the original theory and experiment, the artist meet their success by creativity. New kinds of art or a new method to express one’s feelings are the most attractive one in the world. The art, which is distinct from the predecessors', cannot be realized by people immediately. Furthermore, the grander the arts are, the more obscurity they are. For example, there are always obscurity sentences in the poem of Shakespeare while the Beethoven's sonata expresses a few of obscurity means, which we cannot understand unless paying precise attention to them.

Because of the two characteristics, it is very difficult for us to establish a benchmark for assessing the art's value. Firstly, we cannot realize the value of the arts, especially when they come out recently, because these arts are so different from the former ones which are already accepted by people. So, the critics can lead us to fill the gap between the tradition and the creation. If there is no critic, we don't know how long the artist's art can be realized by the entire world. Furthermore, only the critics are capable of digging into the deep of the arts and therefore show us the profound expression of the arts, because they are interested in and be good at viewing arts at a critical view. With the help of these critics, we can understand what the artist want to express and how they express their feelings. So it must be the critic who gives society something of lasting value.

Moreover, there are many disadvantages of the critic. However, the arts are created by artist rather than critic, because the value of critic is sustained with arts which are the artists’ creation. Most importantly, the art can be controlled or limited by critics, because they are the bridges between the artists and people. Moreover, the relationship between critic and artist are just the same as that between the advertisement and product. A good product will be useless at all if nobody buy them. And how can we let everyone know our product and therefore buy them? The advertisement. So, the artist would tease the critic by some illegal ways, such as sending money to the critic, writing or creating what the critic like and so forth. With the development of this false tendency, the arts would be controlled by the critic eventually.

Generally speaking, we cannot draw a conclusion that the artist or the critic gives society something of lasting value. These two people cannot live without another and the arts' success is belonging to both of them. So, we have to admit that the artist and critic give society something of lasting value together.


TOPIC: ARGUMENT168 - 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.
WORDS: 470 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2008/8/11 23:38:39

In this argument, the arguer draws a conclusion that in order to reduce the risk of fractures in one's later life, we can take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily. It is based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence. At first glance, it seems somewhat convincing and reliable, but further scrutiny reveals that it omits some essential concerns that should be addressed to support the argument. In my point of view, it suffers from 3 logical flaws.

To begin with, the result of the study is not convincing and reliable unless the arguer provides a sufficient number of people involved in the study and ensure these women can be representativeness of the entire spectrum. It is possible that according to the result, the way for reducing the risk of fractures can only be used on French women, because the samples illustrated in the study included French women merely. Furthermore, the arguer fails to claim that how many people are take part in the study. Perhaps, there may be a small number of groups of French women in the study, which would undermine the persuasion of the argument undoubtedly.

In addition, the arguer fails to establish the relationship between the daily supplements of twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium and the reducing the risk of fractures in the study. The arguer holds view that the supplements will result in the reducing unconditionally and absolutely. However, there are other possibilities might just as likely be the causes of the reducing of the risk of fractures. For example, the French women in the study always persist to do exercises everyday, which has good efforts on their body. It is also possible that the reducing is the result of the nurses' good taking care of.

Finally, although the study is convincing and reliable, there is a fault error in the argument. The argument asserts that these women showed a much lower rate of hip fractures than is average for their age. The hip fractures cannot be representative for all kinds of the fractures. Perhaps the rate of arm fracture sand leg fractures is much higher than that of the average. And it is possible that the lower rate is caused by the light weightlifting program rather than the supplements of twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily.

Generally speaking, the arguer fails to substantiate its assertion 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. In addition, the arguer would have to provide more information to make the argument more convincing and reliable. Therefore, if the argument had considered the given factors and possibilities discussed above, the argument would have been more thorough and logically acceptance.