Argument 165 新手 30号开始 球拍 谢谢

fchtiancaiUID：2696347

题目：ARGUMENT 165 - The following appeared in a business magazine.
"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods."

In this argument,the author claims that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk.To support the conlusion,the author point out that that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods.At the first glance,the argument seems to be somewhat logical and convincing,however,after a further consideration in detials,I cannot agree with it for the follow reason.
In the first place, the author didn't provide any other information about Promofoods,it is entirly possible that some other factors lead to this situation.For extance,we don't know how many tuna cans did Promofoods sell in tatal last year,thus could notevaluate if the eight million return cans are among the batch which caused the problems.The arguer unfairly assumes that there only eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea.In my opinion,maybe more than eight chemicals due to the dizziness and nausea.At the same time,they may cause the result that the chemists failed to examine the samples .Unless the author precludes all these possible alternatives,the argument would not be convincing and reasonabe.
In the second place,the author claims that Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year.It cannot illustrate that they make the cans of tuna be returned randomly.They don't have represention.And we do not know if tuna cans are the only kind of food Promoffods sell last year,hence we could not evaluate if the test makes any sence.Furthermore ,these factors should be take into account before come to the final conclsion,neverthless,the authoe neglect nearly all of them.
Last but not the least, there will be a lots of aspects towards this argument.Even assuming that eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea,the author generalizes too hastily that the tested cans don not contain any chemicalsthat pose a health risk at all. For example,the food that people usually eat would cause the dizziness and nausea,everybody maybe know that when food are mixed ,there come into being  varies of changes .So it is not easy to point out what cause this.If we  make a lot of deep observations and exersis ,we will get a good and reasonable answer.
In summary,the conclusion lacks credibility beause the evidence cited in the argument does not lend powerful support to what the author miantains.To strengthen the argument,the author should provide more detailed information about the cans of tuna and Promofoods.