Standardization

1.1: People used the drug for six or more years were twice as likely to develop a psychosis as people who never used
1.2:Long-term users were also four times more likely to have psychotic-like experiences.
1.3 People who used marijuana for fewer than three years still had increased risk for scoring higher than those who had not
1. The marijuana use is not as harmless as some people think.

2.1: Young adult who were born in Brisbane between 1981 and 1984 and average age 2. The earlier you use cannabis, the more likely you are to have symptoms of a psychotic illness.

3.1: of the 1272 participants who had never used, marijuana, 26 were diagnosed with psychosis.
3.2: of the 322 people who had used, marijuana for six or more years, 12 were diagnosed with the illness.
3. They choose to use cannabis they have to understand there’s a risk involved.

4. The people who used marijuana the longest were four times more likely than the people who did not to have the highest scores derived from a list of psychotic-like experiences.

5.1: In the 228 sibling pairs, those who did not use marijuana reported fewer psychotic-like delusions compared with those who used cannabis.
5.2:The study was first to look at sibling pairs to discount genetic or environmental influence and still find marijuana linked to later psychosis.
5. That difference was statistically significant and reduces the likelihood that the psychotic problems were caused by genetics or environment.

C: Young adults who used marijuana as teens were more likely than those who did not develop schizophrenia and symptoms.

Evaluation
Based on the standardization, we will evaluate the article in more details .What the argument is trying to convince us is that teenaged adults who used marijuana were more likely than those who never used it to suffer from schizophrenia and psychotic. This conclusion is supported with some of sub-arguments which consist of sample, population, measurement instrument, test group and control group and will be measured individually as following. First things first, too small as the sample is, it could not represent the population. Besides, the population is small as well. All above taken into consideration, it could not convince us of the conclusion. In addition, the arguments have underlying assumptions. Young adults who used marijuana as teens were more likely than those who did not to develop schizophrenia and psychotic symptoms, in this assumption “who did not” particularly refers to young adults who have never used marijuana, which may lead to misunderstanding. It may be confusing and more complicated to get a clear understanding when arguments suppress assumptions for readers in argument.

The first premise of the first sub-argument target argument is a loaded term .For instance, “those who used the drug for six or more years were twice as likely……..” “Long –term users were also four times more likely to have psychotic-like experiences.” “Also” in this sentence may be loaded for us to believe the facts. Additionally, the author did not express their opinion in great clarity, which could be vagueness. To take first sub-premise as an example, the author said that “those who used the drug for six or more years were twice….” However, in the second premise, the author said that “long- term users were also four times more likely….” Comparing the two premises, we may be quite confused with the times. Also, we could not confirm which type of group is more likely to develop schizophrenia and psychotic symptoms. Furthermore, the second premise “more than 3800 young adults...” which is not specified cannot represent the whole population. Stratified method should be employed in reasons that it holds other factors the same to make sure the result could be reasonable. What is more, these sentences are straw person fallacy. The author cannot provide enough premises to support the sub-argument. For example, “the findings, by