argument165 G-89-互助社-8.3日同主题写作（写过几篇，第一次发）

zrreignUID: 179980

昨天竟然忘了发上来，真是晕倒，今天再发，谢谢大家！

165The 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."



Argument 165 高频

The author claims  a conclusion that  eight million cans of tuna taken back last year  donnot  lead to a health risk, since the chemicals found in returned cans have nothing to do with the symptoms. This opinion is based on the tested result that only there causing chemicals are found in the can, which are also appeared in all cans. For several reasons, the conclusion cannot convince me.

To strengthen the assert, on the basis of that the all remained three chemicals are no relevancy to the causing possibility since other kinds of cans  also contain them, the author does not tell us the difference of dosage, concluded in canned foods. But that will be the crucial evidence to challenge his claim, because it is possible that the quantities of others are in the bound but Promofoods' are not. Therefore, the weak assumption of no considering about the dosage in food renders the conclusion unconvincing.

Secondly, author does not point out the sample size and the selection procedure of those testing samples. It is completely possible that Promofoods only picked up several ones to test, which donnot conclude the other five chemicals or only slightly in the turn. Moreover, may be some procedures about examining those five chemicals are skipped, so the result of this kind of food is without them are inevitable Since author's flaw, the lack of credence is reasonable.

Finally, even if both assumptions are true, we still cannot be convincing of the conclusion. All the results are confirmed in last year, but how can we believe the risk is not going to emergence this year? Even all the risks are excluded last year, there is no commit about the same safety this year, causing the last year cannot typify the next one. Thus, it seems unreasonable that the author simply takes the result of last year as the representative of another one.

So, to assess this claim we need to know how much important the dosage concluded in those foods  can affect people's health, about feeling dizzy and nausea. Another unavoidable evidence is whether the sample selection procedure is convincing and scientific, to confirm the result is convictive. Or at least, author should afford the currently result to add the credence. As a result of all the above, I suppose the author's claim cannot stands.

zrreignUID: 179980

沉的这么快，自己顶一顶

polymathUID: 179557

帮你顶一个！现在比较忙！有空一定来学习！:)

ryanqUID: 154025

板凳！！

ryanqUID: 154025

To strengthen the assert, on the basis of that the all remained three chemicals are(have) no relevancy to the causing possibility since other kinds of cans  also contain them, the author does not tell us the difference of(in) dosage,(去掉) concluded in canned foods. But that will be the crucial evidence to challenge his claim, because it is possible that the quantities of others are in the bound but Promofoods' are not. Therefore, the weak assumption of no considering about the dosage in food(改成equal dosage chemicals in food, 这个是原文在此处的假设) renders the conclusion unconvincing.

Secondly, [(the)] author does not point out the sample size and the selection procedure of those testing samples. It is completely possible that Promofoods only picked up several ones to test, which donnot conclude the other [five chemicals(cans?)] or only slightly in the turn. Moreover, may be some procedures about examining those five chemicals are skipped, so the result of this kind of food is without them [are inevitable].Since author's flaw, the lack of credence is reasonable.[你是想说有别的toxic chemicals没有被纳入到这8个罐头中吗？没看懂]

Finally, even if both assumptions are true, we still cannot be [convincing(convinced)] of the conclusion. All the results are confirmed in last year, but how can we believe the risk is not going to emergence this year? Even all the risks are excluded last year, there is no commit about the same safety this year, causing the last year cannot typify the next one. Thus, it seems unreasonable that the author simply takes the result of last year as the representative of another one.[这一段的逻辑错误我认为找得不对，原文说的就是去年的事情]

提供两个错误:1.chemists是Promofoods自己的人，很有可能串通好了，作假的化验报告。
2.chemists只能检验一些chemical material， bactrium或virus他检测不出来。

刚开始写这样很不错了，呵呵，加油阿，时间也不是很多