[a习作temp] argument165 [0710G突击先锋]第二次作业 [复制链接]

lsing
UID：2256553

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 434
注册时间: 2006-9-26
精华: 0
帖子: 3

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-7-22 21:49:23 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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."

In the argument, the author concludes that the cans did not contain chemiscals that do harms to health just based on the result of the test taken by chemists. At first glance, it appears to be somehow plausible, but further reflection reveals that it is problematic as the following.
To begin with, the threshold problem with the argument involves the statistical reliability of the samples test. The author provides no evidence that the number of the samples is statistically significant and that the examples are representitive of all the cans sold in general. Lacking information about the randomness and size of the samples, the author cannot make a convincing conclusion based on such sample test.
Even if it is granted that the statistics is reliable, the author unfairly assumes that cans contain three chemicals most commonly account for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea would do harm to consumers. Such evidence as the amount of above three chemicals contain in cans and whether the amount is below the standards so that it would not influence on the people's health is not supplied to substantial the conclusion. Maybe there is such a large amount of the chemicals in cans that would induce the sick. If it is the case, the conclusion would be hardly convincing.
Furthermore, author negelects the possibility that cans may contain other chemicals which would also make people such symptoms than the common blames five chemicals. That the chemists have not tested whether any other chemicals contain in the cans does not indicate there is no other chemicals exist in them Maybe it is just the other chemcials rather than common ones that cause the symptoms. If the author could not rule out abovementioned possibility, it would undermine the author's claim
In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we can accept the conclusion, the author must present more substantial evidence about the samples of the test. And to better assess the conclusion, we still need information concerning about test.

[ 本帖最后由 lsing 于 2007-7-23 20:53 编辑 ]

大声希声，大道无形

回应
0

使用道具举报

婉晴1107
UID：2354981

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 189
注册时间: 2007-6-26
精华: 0
帖子: 2

沙发

发表于 2007-7-23 01:11:44 |只看该作者

In the argument, the author concludes that the cans did not contain chemicals that do harms to health just based on the result of the test taken by chemists. At first glance, it appears to be somehow plausible[此话似乎不通哦，是不是应该去掉somehow], but further reflection reveals that it is problematic as the following.

To begin with, the threshold [是不是要表达首要的，用chief 是不是更好]problem with the argument involves the statistical reliability of the samples[sampling] test. The author provides no evidence that the number of the sample is statistically significant and that the examples are representitive of all the cans sold in general. Lacking information about the randomness and size of the sample, thus, the author cannot make a convincing conclusion based on such sample test.

Even if it is granted that the statistics is reliable, the author unfairly assumes that cans contain three chemicals most commonly account for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea would do harm to consumers. Such evidence as the amount of above three chemicals contain in cans and whether the amount is below the standards so that it would not influence on the[去掉the] people's health is not supplied to substantiate the conclusion[这句话太长了哦～]. Maybe there is such a large amount of the[去掉the] chemicals in cans that would induce the sick. If it is the case, the conclusion would be hardly convincing.
Furthermore, theauthor neglects the possibility that cans may contain other chemicals which would also make people such symptoms than the common blames five chemicals. That the chemists have not tested whether any other chemicals contain in the cans. It does not indicate there is no other chemicals exist in them[长句分割]. Maybe it is just the other chemcials rather than common ones that cause the symptoms of dizziness and nausea[充字数呵呵]. If the author could not rule out the possibility mentioned above [above应放在后面], it would undermine the author's claim.
In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we can accept the conclusion, the author must present more substantial evidence about the samples of the test. And to better assess the conclusion, we still need information concerning about[去掉about] the test.