[a习作temp] A92big city+small town这篇感觉太难了，求拍 [复制链接]

erencie
UID: 3311178

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 111
寄托币: 1302
注册时间: 2012-5-12
精华: 1
帖子: 108

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2012-5-27 18:41:47 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 erencie 于 2012-5-27 20:24 编辑

我个人的分析是觉得这个问题是A+B=>C的形式。所以我的论证方法是先攻那个=>也就是那个最后的推论。然后再一次攻击A和B。不知道这样对不对！

92: Workers in thesmall town of Leeville take fewer sick days than workers in the large city ofMasonton, 50 miles away. （A）Moreover, relative to population size, the diagnosisof stress-related illness is proportionally much lower in Leeville than in Masonton.(B)According to the Leeville Chamber of Commerce, these facts can be attributed tothe health benefits of the relatively relaxed pace of life in Leeville.(C)

In this argument, the Leeville Chamber of Commerce asserts that the health benefits of the relatively relaxed pace of life in Leeville is the reason for the facts of fewer sick leaves and less diagnosed stress-related illness in Leeville compared to that in Masonton. However, I find this argument specious because there might be reasons for less illness in Leeville other than the relatively relaxed lifestyle. Close scrutiny of the each of the resultant facts also reveal little credence to this reasoning.

The primary fallacy in this argument is that it places the relaxed lifestyle in Leeville as the only possible reason for the fact of less sickness in Leeville, let alone if this fact is true. But this is not necessarily true. The conventional differences between a typical tranquil small town and a typical busy big city include not only the different paces of life, but also the difference in popular job types. For examples, the Leeville residents might be mainly engaged in less stressful jobs such as shop keepers, gardeners or farmers, while the majority of Masonton residents are doing highly demanding jobs such as financial analysts or computer programmers. This might be a more compelling reason to explain the less sickness in Leeville: during spare time the Masonton residents might still be relaxing their time in gyms, parks or shopping malls, similar to what Leeville residents are doing; but the types of jobs they are involved require a lot of mental works and thus bring stress to them. Thus, without ruling out other possibilities to explain less sickness in the small town, the argument cannot convincingly place the relaxed pace of life as the reason for it.

Looking into one of the facts presented by the argument, which is the reported fewer sick days taken by Leeville workers, I find that it is unwarranted in proving less sickness in Leeville. People do not necessarily take sick leaves only when they are really sick. If the Masonton workers have been consented to take quite a large number of paid sick leaves, which is quite common in the company policies of many big corporations in cities, it is entirely possible that they sometimes would malinger, or “act sick” in order to escape from work responsibilities for a while. If there are insufficient number of qualified doctors in the small town Leeville, workers might feel that taking sick leaves to see a doctor is a waste of time and money, and thus choose to keep working even when they are feeling sick. In this line of analysis, the argument illogically deduces that less workers in Leeville fall sick, based on the reported sick leaves taken. Therefore, its support for the conclusion that less sickness in Leeville is due to its relaxed lifestyle is unsubstantiated.

Another fact presented by the argument, which is the proportionately less stress-related illness in Leeville, is also faulty after careful examination. Although this reasoning takes into account the factor of proportion, it fails to consider the impact of absolute number of residents on the reliability of statistics. Consider the scenario when there are only 100 residents in Leeville and 100 million residents in Masonton: one wrong diagnosis on the mental health of a Leeville resident can already affect one percentage in the statistics chart. While the statistics on the percentage of mental stress gathered from Masonton may be objective, the one gathered from Leeville residents might be heavily influenced by some anomalous singles, due to its small sampling size. If there is a big family in Leeville whose family members are all genetically slightly more resistant to mental stress, the small town may report a much lower percentage of stress-related illness among its residents. Such comparison with the result of Masonton is unfair, and thus it bolsters nothing towards the conclusion that the relaxed lifestyle in Leeville causes less mental stress.

In the final analysis, the argument is weak in several aspects in its evidence as well as its final assertion. To strengthen it, the author needs to provide information which can truly prove workers in Leeville are indeed less inclined to fall sick, such as results of medical examinations, instead of relying on counting sick leaves. The author also needs to ensure sufficiently large sample in Leeville to do fair comparison. Lastly, the author needs to rule out all other possibilities which can benefit the health of Leeville residents more than that of Masonton residents.

相关帖子 Updated by 2024.12.14

回应
0

使用道具举报

erencie
UID: 3311178

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 111
寄托币: 1302
注册时间: 2012-5-12
精华: 1
帖子: 108

沙发

发表于 2012-5-28 16:18:52 |只看该作者

Anyone can give some comments?

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

会飞的蜗牛
UID: 3305460

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 69
注册时间: 2012-5-3
精华: 0
帖子: 4

板凳

发表于 2012-5-30 17:02:36 |只看该作者

2# erencie

you are right. there is little description in this argument,making the flaws so hard to find .

and what's more the relationship : health benifit , relaxed pace life , low-stress-related illness and sick days off should be considered carefully
these takes me a lot of time to figure out .or may be still be unclear.

cause -and effect :relaxed pace life -----lead to----- low-stress-related illness and sick days off
procondition :relaxed pace life could lead to health benifit ? (lack of exercise? obesity?)
or the criteria of health involves only low-stress-related illness and sick days off (maybe others like happiness,heart-disease)

使用道具举报

会飞的蜗牛
UID: 3305460

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 69
注册时间: 2012-5-3
精华: 0
帖子: 4

地板

发表于 2012-5-30 17:04:44 |只看该作者

本帖最后由会飞的蜗牛于 2012-5-30 17:07 编辑

2# erencie 感觉我写的也不好，论述不是很充分，有点牵强了，求拍吧~6.16 伤不起了。。。。

In this analysis, L.C attributed the health benefits of the relatively relaxed pace of life to fewer sick days and less stress-related illness. However, the argument is unreliable unless all the other alternative explanation other than authors' one can be entirely excluded.

In the first place, the arguer's explanation based on fewer sick days in L city is insufficient. It is more likely that L town suffers huge working load. If they take a few days off for sick, they would never accomplish the program in time. Or perhaps the company's regulation concerning in salary is bind with working hours. If they do not work all the time, they would not have a considerable income. For that matter, worker in L city always work with illness. The author should provide the real reason of fewer sick days in L city to exclude this alternative explanations

in the second place, the agruer's and CC's conclusion is based on unclear analogy between M city and L city concering the stress-related illness.perhaps the low stress-related illness is concerned with sample size.it is more likely that the population is very small comparing to the large metropolis like M city. For that matter, the proportion with stress-related is unreliable for the two different cities. The author should provide more accurate numbers in such illness. What more, even if the stress-related illness is low in L town.we donont know others illness such as heart disease , obesity and diabetes.probablly,the small town like L have a larege numbers of people who suffer from a obesity while the M city doesnot.for this matter, we cannot conclude that the health benefits in L town is desired.

last but not least, this conclusion is from Leeville Chamber of Commerce.however,we cannot believe in only one institution.another explanation is that they seem to modify the data to attract more residents from M city which could boost the town's ecnomy. in this case, author cannot justify the conclusion coming from false data.

to sum up, the argument cannot be taken seriously as it stands. in order to give convinced conclusion. the author should conduct a survey concerning the real reason of fewer sick days and the difference between small town and big city.also author need to rule out all the above-mentioned alternative explanations.

快期末考了，每天都很忙，这次写作要悲剧了，求精神支柱，求consolation

使用道具举报