TOPIC: ARGUMENT38 - The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.
"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."
WORDS: 665 TIME: 00:40:23 DATE: 2007-4-11
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the daily use of lchthaid is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To reinforce the argument, the arguer points out that the East Meria's residents visit the doctor few times per year for the treatment of colds because they eat a lot of fish. At first glance, this argument appears to be somehow appealing, but further reflection reveals that it suffers from several flaws.
To begin with, the arguer commits a fallacy of correlation to causation in assuming that the residents of East Meria consume more fish is the sole reason of they pay a low visits to doctor for the treatment of colds. However, the reasoning is questionable because the positive correlation between people eating lots of fish and people catching few colds does not necessarily prove a causal relationship. To establish a general causal relationship between the two events, other factors that could result in people catching few colds should be considered and eliminated. Perhaps, the climate situation of East Meria is so comfortable that it is hardly to catch a cold. For that matter, the residents of East Meria place much attention on their physical conditions. The arguer's failure to investigate or even consider other possibilities renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.
In addition, even assuming a high consumption of fish can prevent colds. The arguer claims that eating the lchthaid, which is derived from fish oil, also can prevent colds. However, there is not necessarily the case. The arguer does not mention whether that eating fish can prevent cold is the function of lchthaid. There is no evidence offered to prove that lchthaid can prevent the cold. In fact, in the face of such limited evidence, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all.
What is more, the arguer makes a false analogy between West Meria and East Meria. The fact that East Meria's residents eat lots of fish and catch few times of colds is not a sound evidence to draw the conclusion that the citizens of West Meria could prevent colds by eating fish. The author assumes without justification that the background conditions have remained the same at different locations. However, it is not clear in this argument whether the conditions in West Meria are the same as those in East Meria. Perhaps, West Meria is colder than East Meria. For that matter, perhaps, West Meria is a place, which is full of ice and snow all the year round. Although, eating fish could prevent colds, but the negative effect of West Meria's climate condition clearly outweigh the positive effect of eating fish. Clothing warmly might be the first choice. Thus, it is impossible to conclude that in West Meria, people can prevent colds by eating fish.
Besides, the aruger overstates the function of using lchthaid. May be it can prevent colds, but the arguer can not convince me that it also can prevent a lower absenteeism. There is no evidence to support the claim. Even the arguer does not make an investigation whether the absenteeism in west Meria is the result of people catching a cold before claiming this conclusion. Perhaps, they tell a lie for a late sleep. Besides, the arguer does not consider the negative effect of eating fish. Perhaps, someone might be allergy to fish. Therefore, without considering or eliminating such possible evidence, the conclusion would be in an implausible position.
Finally, we have strong reasons to question the credibility and neutrality of the report in which the conductor has vested interest and, therefore, is inclined to manipulate the figures to his or her advantage.
In sum, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more information whether lchthaid is the major component of fish to prevent colds. In addition, the arguer also should rule out the above mentioned possibilities that would undermine the arguer's claim.
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the daily use of lchthaid is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To reinforce the argument, the arguer points out that the East Meria's residents visit the doctor few times per year for the treatment of colds because they eat a lot of fish. At first glance, this argument appears to be somehow appealing, but further reflection reveals that it suffers from several flaws.
To begin with, the arguer commits a fallacy of correlation to causation in assuming that the residents of East Meria consume more fish is the sole reason of they pay a low visits to doctor for the treatment of colds. However, the reasoning is questionable because the positive correlation between people eating lots of fish and people catching few colds does not necessarily prove a causal relationship.(觉得这句和前面有点重复) To establish a general causal relationship between the two events, other factors that could result in people catching few colds should be considered and eliminated. Perhaps, the climate situation of East Meria is so comfortable that it is hardly to catch a cold. For that matter, the residents of East Meria(might) place much attention on their physical conditions. The arguer's failure to investigate or even consider other possibilities renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.
In addition, even assuming a high consumption of fish can prevent colds. The arguer claims that eating the lchthaid, which is derived from fish oil, also can prevent colds. However, there is not necessarily the case. The arguer does not mention whether that eating fish can prevent cold is the function of lchthaid. There is no evidence offered to prove that lchthaid can prevent the cold.(前两句好像还是有点重复，留一句就够了吧 ) In fact, in the face of such limited evidence, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all.（觉得这段应该放在后面有的位置吧）
What is more, the arguer makes a false analogy between West Meria and East Meria. The fact that East Meria's residents eat lots of fish and catch few times of colds is not a sound evidence to draw the conclusion that the citizens of West Meria could prevent colds by eating fish. The author assumes without justification that the background conditions have remained the same at（有点奇怪啊，不该用remain吧）different locations. However, it is not clear in this argument whether the conditions in West Meria are the same as those in East Meria. （觉得前面两句有重复了）Perhaps, West Meria is colder than East Meria. For that matter, perhaps, West Meria is a place, which is full of ice and snow all the year round. （你两个例子其实是一样的阿不用 for that matter吧）Although, eating fish could prevent colds, but the negative effect of West Meria's climate condition clearly outweigh the positive effect of eating fish. Clothing warmly might be the first choice. Thus, it is impossible to conclude that in West Meria, people can prevent colds by eating fish.（其实例子不用写那么长吧）
Besides, the aruger overstates the function of using lchthaid. May be it can prevent colds, but the arguer can not convince me that it also can prevent a lower absenteeism. There is no evidence to support the claim. Even the arguer does not make an investigation whether the absenteeism in west Meria is the result of people catching a cold before claiming this conclusion. Perhaps, they tell a lie for a late sleep. Besides, the arguer does not consider the negative effect of eating fish. Perhaps, someone might be allergy to fish. （建议里没说要吃鱼啊，是吃IC）Therefore, without considering or eliminating such possible evidence, the conclusion would be in an implausible position.
Finally, we have strong reasons to question the credibility and neutrality of the report in which the conductor has vested interest and, therefore, is inclined to manipulate the figures to his or her advantage.
In sum, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more information whether lchthaid is the major component of fish to prevent colds. In addition, the arguer also should rule out the above mentioned possibilities that would undermine the arguer's claim.
嘻嘻，好长的ＡＲＧＵ阿，我从来写不了这么长的，不过好像稍稍有点啰嗦，加油吧，比我强多了，我要好好想你学习了，一起努力！作者: benjaminhu 时间: 2007-4-11 17:52:27