TOPIC: ARGUMENT165 - 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."
WORDS: 398 TIME: 0:28:50 DATE: 2007-4-14
Promofoods conclude that their cans does not contains chemicals that posed a health risk. The argument is problematic in several respects, rending it unconvincing as it stands.
First of all, the reliability of the experiment it open to doubt. The author does not provide information that how they did the experiment, how many samples they tested. Without such information it is possible that the chemists of the test are the workers of Promofoods. And they do not tell the truth about the results so that the company would be exempt from the loss. Or perhaps they test some of the good sample so obviously the results would turn good than expected. In addition, the author does not mention that if the sample is good enough. If there are only ten sample, then the result of the test cannot prove that their cans is not the reason of the dizziness and nausea. Without ruling out the possibility, I cannot accept the result of the texts.
Furthermore, the three remaining suspected chemical are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods is scant to prove that they are not responsible for the dizziness and nausea. It is possible that the concentration of this chemical in their cans are higher than other kinds of canned foods. Maybe low concentration of the chemicals does not cause dizziness and nausea, but when the concentration is high; they are dangerous and cause dizziness and nausea. Without considering this, the author simply cannot convince me that the food is safe.
Last but not least, even if the three suspected chemicals are not responsible for the dizziness and nausea, it is still possible that consumer’s dizziness and nausea are due to the cans. As many chemists may lead to this, the chemists only test eight common chemicals. It is entirely possible that other unusual chemists beside these eight chemicals that can cause dizziness and nausea exist in the cans. Or perhaps there are some other chemical in the cans that can react together and produce new chemicals that lead to dizziness and nausea. If true, then the author's conclusion that the cans are safe would be unwarranted.
In sum, the argument is logically flawed. To bolster it the author has to prove the reliability of the text. To better assess the argument I also want to know more detail information about the chemicals the cans contain.作者: freeatom 时间: 2007-4-14 19:59:40
顶一下作者: iq28 时间: 2007-4-17 23:57:51
Promofoods conclude that their cans does not contains chemicals that posed a health risk. The argument is problematic in several respects, rending it unconvincing as it stands.
First of all, the reliability of the experiment it open to doubt. The author does not provide information that how they did the experiment, (建议去掉这个点,空洞不容易说,而且不符合这个题材中陈述的特点) how many samples (此点可以大书特书,因为题材中提到了sample) they tested. Without such information it is possible that the chemists of the test are the workers of Promofoods. And they do not tell the truth about the results so that the company would be exempt from the loss. (此反例不针对前面说的how和sample的任何一点.脱节.尽管这个反例本身可行) Or perhaps they test some of the good sample so obviously the results would turn good than expected. (同前.前面对于sample的攻击仅限于数量上面(many)) In addition, the author does not mention that if the sample is good (是large吧) enough. If there are only ten sample, then the result of the test cannot prove that their cans is not the reason of the dizziness and nausea. Without ruling out the possibility, I cannot accept the result of the texts. (攻击显得比较幼稚,问题很多)
Furthermore, the three remaining suspected chemical are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods is scant to prove that they are not responsible for the dizziness and nausea. It is possible that the concentration of this chemical in their cans are higher than other kinds of canned foods. Maybe low concentration of the chemicals does not cause dizziness and nausea, but when the concentration is high; they are dangerous and cause dizziness and nausea. Without considering this, the author simply cannot convince me that the food is safe. (您太仁慈了....其实这个题目作者的逻辑已经荒谬至极了,都tm找到3中可以导致症状的化学物质了还说无罪~根本不用攻击什么低浓度,直接说已经有了3中显然就是有很大的问题)
Last but not least, (据说为口语词汇.慎用) even if the three suspected chemicals are not responsible for the dizziness and nausea, it is still possible that consumer’s dizziness and nausea are due to the cans. (只攻击can可能不足以凑一个段落,可以考虑can加上别的化学物质.毕竟作者只是说了8种常见的物质的检测情况,别的没有提及) As many chemists may lead to this, the chemists only test eight common chemicals. (混乱,前面说的是can这里忽然跳转到了common chemicals的点上面了) It is entirely possible that other unusual chemists beside these eight chemicals that can cause dizziness and nausea exist in the cans. (插了一句other的情况下面再回来说can的情况,何苦) Or perhaps there are some other chemical in the cans that can react together and produce new chemicals that lead to dizziness and nausea. If true, then the author's conclusion that the cans are safe would be unwarranted.
In sum, the argument is logically flawed. To bolster it the author has to prove the reliability of the text. To better assess the argument I also want to know more detail information about the chemicals the cans contain.