- 最后登录
- 2007-9-7
- 在线时间
- 0 小时
- 寄托币
- 187
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2005-5-13
- 阅读权限
- 15
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 156
- UID
- 2101523
- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 187
- 注册时间
- 2005-5-13
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
:handshake 欢迎拍砖!
TOPIC:ARGUMENT 38 - 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:482 TIME:0:30:00 (+修改30min) DATE:2005-9-4
The arguer concludes that West Meria should be recommended the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism, because he found that the fish consumption is probably the cause to reduce the rate of catching cold. The argument sounds plausible, but it is actually suffers several critical fallacies.
To begin with, the arguer establishes a false analogy between West Meria and East Meria. In the first place, the result of the study might not be statistically reliable. The reported fact that people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds dose not necessarily mean the number of patients who catch cold is mall. Perhaps most people do not want to see doctor when they have a cold because some simple medicine will solve the problem; or perhaps there are many people who visit the doctor are not reported. Without ruling out all these possibilities, it is impossible for the arguer to draw any reliable conclusion based on the study. In the second place, the price of treatment of colds in East Meria is much expensive than in West Meria, so the people could not afford it for many times per year.
Secondly, the arguer conducts an argument on the basis of a poor assumption that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. However, there is no evidence to support the assumption. It is quite possible that the people in East Meria like exercise or the weather there is more moderate which might result in the colds reduction. On the absence of such data as the relationship between the quantity of fish consumption and rate of catching cold, other geological, economic or social factors, I just cannot consider the arguer's commendation seriously.
Furthermore, granted that eating fish can prevent colds, it is not necessarily mean that the Ichthaid is the just effective component in fish oil. The arguer gives no information to prove the effect of Ichthaid on preventing cold. It is entirely possible that some other components, rather than Ichthaid, in fish actually serve as this function; or perhaps many components combine to accomplish such a task of preventing cold.
Last but not least, the assumption that reducing cold will be sure to cut down the absenteeism is lack of evidence. Lacking the information regarding the fraction of cold-catcher in total number of absenteeism and other cause of absenteeism, the arguer’s assumption is unfounded.
In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the Ichthaid consumption and cold preventing and absenteeism in the schools and workplaces. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the similarity between West Meria and East Meria. To better evaluate the argument, we need more information regarding the outcome of Ichthaid to prevent cold and other causes of absenteeism. |
|