[a习作temp] argument38 勇往直前小组第十二次作业 [复制链接]

joycening
UID??2314914

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1501
注册时间: 2007-3-16
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-1 21:45:01 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Argument38
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."

In this argument, the author fails to prove the causal relation between the daily use of Ichthaid(I) and the prevention of colds and the decrease of absenteeism, thus making the author's recommendation that to use I to prevent colds and lower absenteeism totally untenable. I will discuss the fallacies in turn.

To begin with, the author assumes the correlation between the high fish consumption and the fact that people visit the doctor less frequently for colds as a casual relation. However, no evidence is offered to show that the less frequency of colds is the result of the high fish consumption. It is quite possible that people here prefer exercises. More exercises in daily life will build up one's body, thus preventing him from many illnesses such as cold. For that matter, the fewer occurrences of colds has nothing to do with the high fish consumption.

In addition, the author does not consider the possible passive impact of high fish consumption. No other diseases apart from colds is mentioned in this argument, thus leaving open the possibility that there is a high incidence of other illness such as stroke, which is much more serious that colds. And this might be caused by the too high consumption of fish. No mention of the occurrence of other diseases, we cannot be persuasive high fish consumption really do good to people's health.

Even eating more fish in daily life can be accepted as a reasonable way to prevent colds, it is unnecessary that the daily use of I can prevent of colds. I is derived from fish oil, and as we all know, many elements of fish will change during the procedure to extract. Perhaps it is those changed elements that means a lot to prevent colds, while has nothing to do fish oil, let alone I. If it is so, the recommendation of the daily use of I is quite poor advice.

Furthermore, the author assumes that the absenteeism in schools and workplaces is caused by colds. However, this is might not be the case. Catching cold can only be used as a pretext of people's laziness. In another word, they do not go to work or school just because they do not want to rather than they catch cold. If the inherent cause of absenteeism is not found out and solve, lower occurrence of colds will not remedy the absenteeism.

In sum, the argument is unwarranted as it stands. The author fails to take many key factors into account. If the author can provide more information about how the overall healthy conditions of people are improved by the high fish consumption and the real cause of people's absenteeism to schools and workplaces, as well as the positive impact on people's health made by I, the argument will be more persuasive.

回应
0

使用道具举报

strontium023
UID??2316968

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 339
注册时间: 2007-3-20
精华: 0
帖子: 3

沙发

发表于 2007-8-1 23:52:02 |只看该作者

In this argument, the author fails to prove the causal relation between the daily use of Ichthaid(I) (这个简写的I在后文很易引起歧义)and the prevention of colds and the decrease of absenteeism, thus making the author's recommendation that to use I to prevent colds and lower absenteeism totally untenable. I will discuss the fallacies in turn.

To begin with, the author assumes the correlation between the high fish consumption and the fact that people visit the doctor less frequently for colds as a casual relation(这里是不是要说因果关系啊?causal relation). However, no evidence is offered to show that the less frequency of colds is the result of the high fish consumption. It is quite possible that people here prefer exercises.(觉得这里用prefer,就有一种比较的意味在里面,这里的意思就好象是人们更喜欢运动而不是吃鱼,我觉得应该修改一下,是人们更注重自己保养健康,而不是由吃鱼引起的.) More exercises in daily life will build up one's body, thus preventing him from many illnesses such as cold. For that matter, the fewer occurrences of colds has nothing to do with the high fish consumption.

In addition, the author does not consider the possible passive impact of high fish consumption. No other diseases apart from colds is mentioned in this argument, thus leaving open the possibility that there is a high incidence of other illness such as stroke, which is much more serious that colds. And this might be caused by the too high consumption of fish. No mention of the occurrence of other diseases, we cannot be persuasive high fish consumption really do good to people's health.(觉得这段不是主要的逻辑错误.)

Even eating more fish in daily life can be accepted as a reasonable way to prevent colds, it is unnecessary that the daily use of I can prevent of colds. I is derived from fish oil, and as we all know, many elements of fish will change during the procedure to extract. Perhaps it is those changed elements that means a lot to prevent colds, while has nothing to do fish oil, let alone I. If it is so, the recommendation of the daily use of I is quite poor advice.

Furthermore, the author assumes that the absenteeism in schools and workplaces is caused by colds. However, this is might not be the case. Catching cold can only be used as a pretext of people's laziness. In another word, they do not go to work or school just because they do not want to rather than they catch cold. If the inherent cause of absenteeism is not found out and solve, lower occurrence of colds will not remedy the absenteeism.(这个反例好)

In sum, the argument is unwarranted as it stands. The author fails to take many key factors into account. If the author can provide more information about how the overall healthy conditions of people are improved by the high fish consumption and the real cause of people's absenteeism to schools and workplaces, as well as the positive impact on people's health made by I, the argument will be more persuasive.

语言很好哦,读起来很舒服.

[ 本帖最后由 strontium023 于 2007-8-2 00:42 编辑 ]

这个暑假别样凉爽.......给自己一个全新的自己......

使用道具举报

piggyaugu
UID??2321665

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 64
注册时间: 2007-3-31
精华: 0
帖子: 4

板凳

发表于 2007-8-2 01:07:28 |只看该作者

很强啊。。。学习。。。

使用道具举报

269750640
UID??2358012

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 1
寄托币: 945
注册时间: 2007-7-3
精华: 2
帖子: 10

地板

发表于 2007-8-3 04:34:05 |只看该作者

In this argument, the author fails to prove the causal relation between the daily use of Ichthaid(I) and the prevention of colds and the decrease of absenteeism, thus making the author's recommendation that to use I to prevent colds and lower absenteeism totally untenable. I will discuss the fallacies in turn.

To begin with, the author assumes the correlation between the high fish consumption and the fact that people visit the doctor less frequently for colds as a casual relation. However, no evidence is offered to show that the less frequency of colds is the result of the high fish consumption. It is quite possible that people here prefer exercises. More exercises in daily life will build up one's body, thus preventing him from many illnesses such as cold. For that matter, the fewer occurrences of colds has nothing to do with the high fish consumption.

In addition, the author does not consider the possible passive impact of high fish consumption. No other diseases apart from colds is mentioned in this argument, thus leaving open the possibility that there is a high incidence of other illness such as stroke, which is much more serious that colds. And this might be caused by the too high consumption of fish.（对于这一点我同意storntium023的观点） No mention of the occurrence of other diseases, we cannot be persuasive high fish consumption really do good to people's health.

Even eating more fish in daily life can be accepted as a reasonable way to prevent colds, it is unnecessary that the daily use of I can prevent of colds. I is(在这里很容易被看错成主谓不一致，下次引用的时候尽量避免一下，毕竟ETS看卷子是不会特别认真的！) derived from fish oil, and as we all know（换成common senesce）, many elements of fish will change during the procedure to extract. Perhaps it is those changed elements that means a lot to prevent colds, while has nothing to do fish oil, let alone I. If it is so, the recommendation of the daily use of I is quite poor advice.

Furthermore, the author assumes that the absenteeism in schools and workplaces is caused by colds. However, this is might not be the case. Catching cold can only be used as a pretext of people's laziness. In another word, they do not go to work or school just because they do not want to rather than they catch cold.（太绝对了把，应该用一些假设性的语言） If the inherent cause of absenteeism is not found out and solve, lower occurrence of colds will not remedy the absenteeism.

In sum, the argument is unwarranted as it stands. The author fails to take many key factors into account. If the author can provide more information about how the overall healthy conditions of people are improved by the high fish consumption and the real cause of people's absenteeism to schools and workplaces, as well as the positive impact on people's health made by I, the argument will be more persuasive.

ISSUE的精髓－－将辩论进行到底

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-719344-1-1.html

使用道具举报