[a习作temp] argument38 [09年04月机考作文组]第2周第1次作业 by 程喷喷 [复制链接]

程喷喷
UID: 2469587

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 243
注册时间: 2008-3-10
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-3-3 19:11:44 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

The arguer recommends the daily use of lchthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To support this recommendation, he points out that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds according to a study report that people in East Meria visit doctor only once or twice per year for treatment of colds due to high fish consumption. However, this argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

To begin with, the arguer fabric a causal link between high fish consumption and low rate of cold catching. On one hand, residents visit doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds is not equal to low cold catching rate in the area. Since it is not difficult to cure colds in most situations, people are able to buy medicines without doctor’s prescription and they may prefer curing themselves to visiting doctors. On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that eating fish can prevent colds. Perhaps a kind of tea’s consumption is also extraordinarily high in East Meria and an element in this tea can improve human’s immune system. Or perhaps people there do exercises frequently, therefore, they are healthier than others. Unless ruling out other facts which may also effect on people’s health, it is too hasty to draw conclusion.

Second, even if eating fish do prevent colds, the arguer gives no information to prove that Lchthaid, derived from fish oil, would effect. In first place, no evidence produced in the argument show it is Lchtthaid that effect on cold preventing. It might be possible that other nutritional supplement could be derived from fish oil which is exactly what prevent colds. In the second place, that fish, as a whole, is effective, cannot guarantee the effective nutrition will still work when it was derived. Without experiments, it is impossible to make sure whether this method is scientific or not.

Finally, let alone the possibility for same method work on different people, even if the daily use of lchthaid does become a good way to prevent colds among residents in West Meria, whether lower absenteeism be prevented is another story. General knowledge informs me that colds are the best excuse for absenteeism because catching cold is easy to be pretended and absence for this reason is quite acceptable. Therefore, it is entirely possible absenteeism would not be reduced by preventing colds since it might not the real reason for absence.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and the recommendation is misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to give detail information about the relation between fish eating and colds preventing. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the recommendation until the arguer can prove that colds are the real reason for most absenteeism.

回应
0

使用道具举报

weitao
UID: 2439222

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 11
寄托币: 456
注册时间: 2007-12-15
精华: 1
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2009-3-4 18:10:49 |只看该作者

1# 程喷喷
I will polish your essay before tomorrow night! You have my word!

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

weitao
UID: 2439222

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 11
寄托币: 456
注册时间: 2007-12-15
精华: 1
帖子: 0

板凳

发表于 2009-3-13 17:37:58 |只看该作者

The arguer recommends the
daily use of lchthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To support this recommendation, he[url=] he [/url]points[微软用户1] out that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds according to a study report that people in East Meria visit doctor only once or twice per year for treatment of colds due to high fish consumption. However, this argument suffers from several critical fallacies.
第二句太长，句法问题。

To begin with, the arguer fabric（Do mean the word “fabricate”） a causal link between high fish consumption and low rate of cold catching. On one hand, residents visit doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds
is(grammer mistake!) not equal to low cold catching rate in the area. Since it is not difficult to cure colds in most situations, people are able to buy medicines without doctor’s prescription(seems like this can only happen in our country!) and they may prefer curing themselves to visiting doctors. On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that eating fish can prevent colds. Perhaps a kind of tea’s consumption (verbose, cancel it!)is also extraordinarily high in East Meria and an element in this tea can improve human’s immune system. Or perhaps people there do exercises frequently, therefore, they are healthier than others. Unless ruling out other facts(the word “fact” can equals to “TRUTH” ) which may also effect on people’s health, it is too hasty to draw conclusion(U made a logic mistake on grammer! The logical subject of this sentence should be the arguer).

Second, even if(not very formal, what about “given that”?) eating fish do prevent colds, the arguer(see what) gives no information to prove that Lchthaid, derived from fish oil(you have already mentioned above!), would effect. In first place, no evidence [url=]produced in the argument[/url][微软用户2] [url=]show[/url][微软用户3] it is Lchtthaid that [url=]effect[/url][微软用户4] on cold preventing. It[url=] might be possible [/url][微软用户5] that [url=]other nutritional supplement [/url][微软用户6] could be derived from fish oil which is exactly what prevent colds. In the second place, that fish, as a whole, is effective, cannot guarantee the effective nutrition will still work when it was derived. Without experiments, it is impossible to make sure whether this method is scientific or not.
Your line of reasoning is not quite smoth, the sentences are rather complicated and verbose. I suggest, before you write complicated sentences, look into relerant grammer references!

Finally,[url=] let alone[/url][微软用户7] the possibility for same method work on different people, even if [url=]the[/url][微软用户8] daily use of lchthaid does [url=]become[/url][微软用户9] a good way to prevent colds [url=]among residents in West Meria[/url][微软用户10] , whether lower absenteeism be prevented is another [url=]story[/url][微软用户11] . General knowledge[url=] informs[/url][微软用户12] me that colds are the best excuse for absenteeism because catching cold is easy to be pretended and absence for this reason is quite acceptable. Therefore, it is entirely possible(that) absenteeism would not be reduced by preventing colds since it might not the real reason for absence.
(老实说这段话我没有读懂，特别是第一句，几个明显的语法错误和词语的重复运用，你是想表明常识告诉我们以感冒为接口逃避工作是很好的解脱方式，对吧，但是你的论证过程是干瘪的，没有说明清楚吃I那种东西可以降低旷工旷课的概率。))

To sum up, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and the recommendation is misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to give detail（detailed） information about the relation between fish eating and colds preventing. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the recommendation until the arguer can prove that colds are the real reason for most absenteeism.、
建议：复习英文句法，不确定的词语尽量多查词典，丰富自己的语言表达方式。减少逻辑错误！！！

[微软用户1](How do you know the arguer is male?)

[微软用户2] Logic mistake!

[微软用户3] Show that: xxxxxx

[微软用户4]affects

[微软用户5]see what?

[微软用户6]Other nutritional supplements

[微软用户7]There is no explanation or reasoning before the phrase”let alone”

[微软用户8]delete it!

[微软用户9]What about “turn out to be”?

[微软用户10]Delete !

[微软用户11]What do you want to illustrate in this wrong sentence?

[微软用户12]Look it into dictionary

使用道具举报