[a习作temp] ARGUMENT80 [复制链接]

jokid
UID: 2368230

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 78
注册时间: 2007-7-23
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-2-17 20:24:03 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT80 - The following appeared as an editorial in a health magazine.

"Clormium 5 is an odorless, tasteless, and generally harmless industrial by-product that can enter the water supply. A preliminary study has linked cooking with water containing clormium 5 to an increased incidence of allergies and skin rashes. Tests of the drinking water in several areas have revealed the presence of clormium 5. Although it is possible to remove clormium 5 from water, the costs of routine testing and purification are higher than many communities can afford. Therefore, in order to prevent allergies and skin rashes, communities that cannot afford to rid their drinking water of clormium 5 should replace drinking fountains in public buildings, such as schools and libraries, with bottled-water coolers."

The speaker asserts that communities that can not afford to rid their drinking water of clormium 5 should replace drinking fountains in public buildings, in order to prevent allergies and skin rashes. And the reasons the speaker provided seem sounded. However, those reasons can not efficiently support the assertion.
To begin with, the result of preliminary study should be questioned. Whether it is the clormium 5 that causes allergies and skin rashes do not supported by the speaker with more effective details. The reasons that cause allergies and skin rashes can be many other than clormium 5. It is more likely that since the water is polluted, there may be poison materials should due to the result .It will be more warranted to void other facts that would cause those ailments. Unless the speaker shows more evidences, the result of the study may be just coincide that do not support that clormium 5 is harmful.
And what is more, odorlessness, tastelessness can not be the reason that clormium should be ridded. Without any test show how harmful the clorimium to the human-being, the speaker's assertion should not be taken seriously.
Even assumeing that the clormium 5, it is harmful, and the communities have to do something to rid their drinking water of clorimium 5. It still do not need to replace drinking fountains. The speaker argues that the cost of routine testing and purification are higher that many communities can afford. There would be other solutions, for instance, the materials that would product the cloriminm might be change for other. And the speaker did not give us how many do the two measure cost. So we can not judge which measure would be better. Maybe the routine testing and purification system could be used for long turn, so the cost per year may lower than change drinking fountains.
Since accepted the clorimuim would be cleaned, just replacing drinking fountains in public building is, of course, not enough. For sure the health of the residents of these areas, all the drinking fountains should be replaced. And then the cost should be compared to the cost of routine testing and purification system. And the health problem is much bigger than money problem. So the better measure should be the more safely one.
In sum, the speaker assertion should give more effecting evidence. Unless the speaker shows us the clorimium 5 will truly cause serious health problem, and the cost for change drinking fountains for all the houses in this area, the speaker's conclusion is unwarranted.