[a习作temp] argument165 <突击先锋小组> 第2次作业 yifei4727 [复制链接]

yifei4727
UID：2241625

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 158
注册时间: 2006-8-13
精华: 0
帖子: 8

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-7-22 20:11:09 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: 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."

7-22 第2篇
字数 393 感觉写得不好。。。。

The argument above presents a relative sound case for arguing that the cans of tuna did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk about dizziness and nausea according as the result of the Promofoods's test. However, careful scrutiny of this argument would reveal that it suffers several fallacies and therefore is unconvincing.

To begin with, the arguer provides no evidence to convince us that the Promofoods's test is statistically reliable. The arguer doesn't mention whether the returned eight million cans of tuna respresentiative in general and whether they chosen randomly for the test. Perhaps mostly of these cans come from the same areas or the same manufactory, and it is highly possible the returned eight million cans of tuna only 0.1 percentage of the total amount of the cans. Without ruling out the possibilities, the arguer cannot rely on the result of the test to draw any firm conclusion.

Furthermore, even if the cans are representative enough to justify the conclusion, the arguers merely on the basis that there are just only eight chemicals blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea. It is entirely possible that there are other chemicals might cause these symptoms but not tested by the Promofoods and just that and those other chemicals actually cause the dizziness and nausea. Therefore, the result of the test would be unreasonable to support the author's claims.

Finally, although three of the eight chemicals also occur naturally in other canned food, there is no guarantee that it is the case that the cans did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. Perhaps the concentration of those three chemicals is higher than in the other kinds of canned foods, the higher concentration of the chemicals, the higher chance to get sick. In addition, the content of these chemicals might exceed the standard that would induce dizziness and nausea. Thus, unless the author rules out these possible, he or she cannot claim that the recalled cans did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk.

In summary, this argument has several patent flaws which render it unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, further investigation and analysis are needed. The author would need to provide clear evidence that what the concentration of those three chemicals. Furthermore , to better bolster the author's claims we need more information about the testing procedure.

回应
0

使用道具举报

xmubit
UID：2362643

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 4
寄托币: 1013
注册时间: 2007-7-13
精华: 0
帖子: 29

沙发

发表于 2007-7-22 23:00:59 |只看该作者

The argument above presents a relative sound case for arguing that the cans of tuna did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk about dizziness and nausea according as the result of the Promofoods's test. However, careful scrutiny of this argument would reveal that it suffers several fallacies and therefore is unconvincing.

To begin with, the arguer provides no evidence to convince us that the Promofoods's test is statistically reliable. The arguer doesn't mention whether the returned eight million cans of tuna respresentiative [representative] in general and whether they chosen randomly for the test. Perhaps mostly[most] of these cans come from the same areas or the same manufactory, and it is highly possible the returned eight million cans of tuna only 0.1 percentage of the total amount of the cans. Without ruling out the possibilities, the arguer cannot rely on the result of the test to draw any firm conclusion.[这显然是个随机样本错误，你也提到了chosen randomly，所以仅攻击数量这个过于普通的问题貌似不妥]

Furthermore, even if the cans are representative enough to justify the conclusion, the arguers merely on the basis that there are just only eight chemicals blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea. It is entirely possible that there are other chemicals might cause these symptoms but not tested by the Promofoods and just that and those other chemicals actually cause the dizziness and nausea. Therefore, the result of the test would be unreasonable to support the author's claims.

Finally, although three of the eight chemicals also occur naturally in other canned food, there is no guarantee that it is the case that [可以去掉it is the case that]the cans did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. Perhaps the concentration of those three chemicals is higher than in the other kinds of canned foods, the higher concentration of the chemicals, the higher chance to get sick[the higher chance people get sick]. In addition, the content of these chemicals might exceed the standard that would induce dizziness and nausea.[上述两点有点重复，说的都是同一点内容]Thus, unless the author rules out these possible, he or she cannot claim that the recalled cans did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk.

In summary, this argument has several patent flaws which render it unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, further investigation and analysis are needed. The author would need to provide clear evidence that what the concentration of those three chemicals. Furthermore , to better bolster the author's claims we need more information about the testing procedure.

使用道具举报