[a习作temp] argument38 0710G summer小组作业4 [复制链接]

The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.

"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 only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences 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."

提纲：无因果断定East Meria去医院治感冒次数少是因为吃鱼多，或许经常锻炼，或许感冒自己买药吃。

      即使大量吃鱼能防止感冒，适用于East Meria不一定适用于West Meria，考虑一下West Meria饮食习惯。

再说，鱼和鱼肝油不是一个概念。

      没有足够的证据说明感冒是旷工旷课的主要原因。或许他们就是不想上班上学，即使不感冒还会有其他理由。

正文：

The argument recommends the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism in West Meria. To justify this recommendation, the argument cites a study in nearby East Meria to prove that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds, and also points out that colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work in West Meria. However, the author fails to provide enough evidences to testify these assumptions, and cannot convince me.

To begin with, the author assumes unfairly that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. The study which the author offers as evidence is unconvincing, because of several other possibilities. First, the author cannot assert people in East Meria catch only once or twice per year merely by the times they go to the hospital, perhaps they go to medicine shop for some over the count medicine rather than visit the doctor when they catch cold. Secondly, it is entirely possible that if they have good habits of taking exercises every day, they can keep themselves away from cold too. Thus, without ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot assert that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds.

Even if it is sure that we can prevent colds by eating a substantial amount of fish, it may not work in West Meria’s. The author should also take the diet habit of West Meria’s people into consideration. The argument does not refer to whether people in West Meria’s enjoy eating fish. What is more, no evidence is offered to testify that the effect of having nutritional supplement derived from fish oil amounts to eating fish. Yet, Ichthaid which the author recommends to use daily is just such a nutritional supplement, not a kind of fish. And the author does not mention if Ichthaid can bring about side effects.

Finally, let us assume that all the uncertainties mentioned above are credible, however, no evidence indicates that it can prevent lower absenteeism. Although colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work in West Meria, it is entirely possible to be a pretext. The author overlooks that the reported reason is not always the real reason. Thus, at least, daily use of Ichthaid is not a direct and effective solution to lower absenteeism.

In sum, the author’s recommendation to use Ichthaid daily as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism in West Meria is not convincing. To strength the argument the author must provide clear evidence that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds, and the effect of Ichthaid is the same as fish. To bolster the recommendation I would to know that colds is the real reason for people in West Meria to be absences from school and work.