[a习作temp] argument165 有拍必回 [复制链接]

5-fish
UID：2314532

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 378
注册时间: 2007-3-15
精华: 0
帖子: 7

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-3-31 10:52:59 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

题目：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."
字数：433 用时：0:48:58 日期：2007-3-31

The conclusion that the cans did not contain the health-risk elements is groundless for the two experiment of chemical testing. So the conclusion is logically unconvincing in several respects.

The mere fact that testing the samples shows that five chemicals causing dizziness and nausea symptoms were not found is insufficient evidence to conclude that the cans did not cause dizziness and nausea. Because the chemists only test the eight most commonly blamed for causing the symptoms. Although the five dizziness-nausea-causing chemicals were not contained in the cans, the arguer shows little information about other three dizziness-nausea-causing chemicals. The experiments on cans would be more persuasive if show more the details of all of the dizziness-nausea-causing chemicals in the cans, and the amount of the chemicals in each can toward the particular chemical. Besides it is entirely possible that other chemists causing the same symptoms were contained in the cans. Without showing the details and ruling out the possibility point out above, the cans cannot cause the symptoms is dubious at best.

Another flaw that weakens the logic of the argument is following experiment.
Chemists did find that tree remaining suspected chemicals in all other kinds of canned foods lends no strong support to the conclusion that the three remaining chemicals would not cause the symptom. It is possible that the kinds of canned food are different, perhaps the chemicals have some negative effect when packed with fish, while have few effect when packed with vegetables. And different kinds of cans have different volume, which means the chemical level might be different. Perhaps small cans contain few chemicals would not lead to the symptoms, but some big cans are different.

Although the Promofoods cans is not the factor of causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, it does not mean these cans did not contain chemicals posed a health risk. Dizziness and nausea are only the symptoms of bad stage health. The people suffering form dizziness and nausea are more likely following with other symptoms. A careful examination for the dizziness and nausea patients should be taken to ruling out the other health risk.

Finally, the chemists are come form Promofoods company, so they may likely to hold some information for the good of the company. Beside, how the samples are get and the details of the chemical experiments, the arguer does not mention. These are the other flows of the argument.

In sum, the conclusion is not convincing for the unreasonable experiment, and vigorous details. For the better persuasive argument, the arguer should provide more convincing experiment and details of the cans.

回应
0

使用道具举报

Melody0722
UID：2315192

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 145
注册时间: 2007-3-17
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2007-3-31 20:14:23 |只看该作者

point out --pointed out
following experiment--following the experiment?
it does not mean these cans did not contain chemicals posed a health risk--中间加个that是不是好点?

使用道具举报