标题: Argument165 @@A DREAM @@ by 吴虑 [打印本页] 作者: 112810as 时间: 2009-6-29 21:22:05 标题: Argument165 @@A DREAM @@ by 吴虑
The Promofoods concluded that the cans of tuna did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. To support this conclusion, the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans. Five of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea were not found, while the other three chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods. Close scrutiny of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the conclusion.
To begin with, the validity of the test is doubtful. Lacking information about the number of the recalled cans tested, it is impossible to access the validity of the results. For example, if only eighty cans are tested as the samples, the test would be highly suspect. In addition, from the test we find little sign of such procedures from random sampling, thus doubting whether the samples are representative of the overall population of the recalled cans. If the samples are only limited to a certain scope, the results of the text will be unconvincing.
Moreover, even if one accepts the samples of the text, the argument remains questionable. The chemists from Promofoods failed to point out what is the contents of the three remaining suspected chemicals are there in the cans. It is entirely possible that little content of the three chemicals may not lead to dizziness and nausea, but the cans of tuna contain high contents of the three chemicals, which may make people dizziness and nausea. Furthermore, although all other kinds of canned foods contain the three remaining suspected chemicals, all the other kinds of canned foods can contain components that move or react to three remaining suspected chemicals, while the cans of tuna contain no components that move or react to the three chemicals. If so, we can conclude that the recalled cans of tuna cause these symptoms.
Even assuming the contents of the three chemicals conform the standard, and the cans contain components that move or react to the three remaining suspected chemicals, the chemicals failed to consider other possible alternatives that also may lead to dizziness and nausea. Excepting the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, there might be other chemicals which are not commonly that the cans contains. In addition, the other possible health risks that the recalled cans might potentially pose.
In sum, the Promofoods has not convinced me that the cans of tuna did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. However, to better support the conclusion, the Promofoods should provide evidence that the samples of text are validity and the chemicals in the recalled can’t lead to dizziness and nausea.