- 最后登录
- 2005-7-9
- 在线时间
- 0 小时
- 寄托币
- 197
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2004-9-21
- 阅读权限
- 15
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 72
- UID
- 179561
- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 197
- 注册时间
- 2004-9-21
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
argument38
The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council. 【38】
"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 /consulting <consulting the doctor in event of being infected with common cold>/ home-remedy/the cost for consulting the doctor may be unaffordable for them/ for such a common cold only once or twice frequency per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent /cure colds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences presence/ slack/excuse 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."
In this argument, the innovative usage of fish for reducing absenteeism in schools and workplaces was recommended. Based on a study, which indicated a low frequency of consulting doctor of East Meria residents for cold, the author seems to logically arrive his assertion.
However, the assertion is premised on an unfair assumption that fish consumption is directly responsible for effective cold prevention. Despite the fact that there is low rate of visiting doctors for East Meria residents, there is no causal relation between fish in dietary and people’s fitness. Various other factors should be counted. It is possible people in East Meria prefer family-remedy, since they do not take it serious for such a mild illness, or they are reluctant to pay for doctor consulting; also, maybe it is the good lifestyle of people living there contribute more to their health status than eating fish, like keeping regular exercises and moderate diet habit. In addition, even if we assume fish dish is helpful to prevent the event of colds, there is no evidence to justify a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil could have the same effect as fish. Common sense informs us, compositions of derivate of fish oil are surly different from that of fish, but the author made no effort to study on this matter, therefore his suggestion is unpersuasive.
Another problem is the author made a false analogy. There is no sufficient explanation about West Meria and East Meria are similar in climate and environment. What are the climates in these two places? What is the surrounding near residential districts? It is possible that weather in East Meria is mild while that in West Meria is changeable; it is also possible that environmental protection in East Meria is much better than West Meria, for instance, more gardens or better air condition. In either cases, people in East Meria would generally keep fit therefore less likely to catch cold, no matter they eat fish or not. But, if people in West Meria take the recommendation of the author, they may not effectively prevent the occurrence of cold.
Finally, the author arrived at the conclusion that the usage of Ichthaid could reduce absenteeism. Is suffering from cold the true reason that people be absent from school or work? From our everyday experience, catching cold may be an excuse for people to skip study or work, and the real reason lies in their slack other than health problems. In this matter, it is useless of the author’s suggestion to enhance people’s presence at work.
Conclusively, this argument is not thoroughly convincing. We need to more evidence to substantiate the fish dietary is effective to prevent colds and Ichthaid could be a substitute for fish. Also, we need to know if fish treatment as the author mention would be useful for people in West Meria. Finally, to strengthen his conclusion, the author should do more close study on the real reason of absenteeism in West Meria. |
|