argument38 G89互助社 10日同主题写作

vico8478UID：2120997

Argument38  第7篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分19秒     518 words
从2005年7月10日15时57分到2005年7月10日16时30分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The arguer advocates using Ichthaid (I) which contains fish oil to prevent colds and thus lead to lower absenteeism in this argument. To bolster his claim, the arguer assumes that colds are the main reason for absenteeism. Besides, he cites a study report to justify that fish oil has the function of preventing colds. In my point of view, this argument suffers from several logical flaws.

The threshold problem of the argument is that the arguer unfairly assumes that colds lead to the absenteeism in the schools and workplaces. However, the arguer provides no evidence to substantiate this assumption. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that there stills exists some other reasons why people are absent at schools and workplaces. Perhaps, for example, people there have the habit to be absent. Seeing others don’t come to work or study, those who even have not got colds turns to be absent as well. Moreover, the absenteeism in this area is maybe due to other illnesses other than colds. Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the argument is unwarranted as it stands.

Secondly, the study that the arguer cites is not cogent enough to substantiate his claim. The arguer does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the reliability of the study, for it fails to inform who conducted the study, how the study was conducted, the dependability of the data it uses. Without this important evidence, the arguer cannot convince me that the result of the study is reliable. Even if the study is reliable, the arguer assumes further that people get fewer colds based on the fact that people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Nevertheless, people who have a cold which is not very serious would not have gone to the doctor's and would take some medicine at home. Even if the number of colds is really low there, it does not definitely have a causal relationship between the high fish consumption in East Meria. Perhaps, people there are very strong and not easy to get cold or the weather there is very good. Without ruling out these possibilities, I remain unconvinced at the argument.

Finally, the arguer recommends using a supplement everyday to prevent colds. However, the arguer fails to provide compelling evidence to substantiate the point that this supplement is useful in preventing colds. Even if eating fish can prevent cold, it remains unknown that which part of the fish is the substance in preventing fish. The efficiency of this supplement is open to doubt. Thus it is too hasty for the arguer to conclude that using this kind of supplement can prevent colds.

To sum up, though the argument seems to be plausible, it is neither sound nor persuasive. To strengthen the argument, the author has to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the reliability of the study. To better evaluate to argument, it is also necessary to know the fact that whether cold is the cause to absenteeism and whether eating that supplement would prevent colds. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

Joey_zhouUID：2122025

占个位置，一会来改

Joey_zhouUID：2122025

1.        Argument38  第7篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分19秒     518 words
从2005年7月10日15时57分到2005年7月10日16时30分
------题目------
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.' ------正文------
The arguer advocates using Ichthaid (I) which contains fish oil to prevent colds and thus lead to lower absenteeism in this argument. To bolster his claim, the arguer assumes that colds are the main reason for absenteeism. Besides, he cites a study report to justify that fish oil has the function of preventing colds. In my point of view, this argument suffers from several logical flaws.

The threshold problem of the argument is that the arguer unfairly assumes that colds lead to the absenteeism in the schools and workplaces. However, the arguer provides no evidence to substantiate this assumption. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that there stills exists some other reasons why people are absent at schools and workplaces (some other reasons why people are absent at schools and workplaces still exist there   你的说法有点中文化). Perhaps, for example, people there have the habit to be absent. Seeing others don’t come to work or study, those who even have not got colds turns to be absent as well. Moreover, the absenteeism in this area is maybe due to other illnesses other than colds. Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the argument is unwarranted as it stands.
（我觉得该段的论证点比较牵强）
Secondly, the study that the arguer cites is not cogent enough to substantiate his claim. The arguer does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the reliability of the study, for it fails to inform who conducted the study, how the study was conducted, the dependability of the data it uses. Without this important evidence, the arguer cannot convince me that the result of the study is reliable. Even if the study is reliable, the arguer assumes further that people get fewer colds based on the fact that people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Nevertheless, people who have a cold which is not very serious would not have gone to the doctor's and would take some medicine at home. Even if the number of colds is really low there, it does not definitely have a causal relationship between the high fish consumption in East Meria. Perhaps, people there are very strong and not easy to get cold or the weather there is very good. Without ruling out these possibilities, I remain unconvinced at the argument.(这段的论证不错)

Finally, the arguer recommends using a supplement everyday to prevent colds. However, the arguer fails to provide compelling evidence to substantiate the point that this supplement is useful in preventing colds. Even if eating fish can prevent cold, it remains unknown that which part of the fish is the substance in preventing fish. The efficiency of this supplement is open to doubt. Thus it is too hasty for the arguer to conclude that using this kind of supplement can prevent colds.（这段的论证语句我也很喜欢）

To sum up, though the argument seems to be plausible, it is neither sound nor persuasive. To strengthen the argument, the author has to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the reliability of the study. To better evaluate to（好像不用to？） argument, it is also necessary to know the fact that whether cold is the cause to absenteeism and whether eating that supplement would prevent colds. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.（语句写的很好，基本没有啥问题。我的提纲放在下面，个人觉得现在新的观点是高分的关键）

1．        here are a lot of places where people who eat other food seldom get cold. Maybe is the area benefit.
2．        ot medical convince prove that fish can prevent people from the cold. Maybe the people in the place have another kind of food.
3．although ichthaid is derived from the fish. No example prove it effect on preventing cold.

vico8478UID：2120997

1．        here are a lot of places where people who eat other food seldom get cold. Maybe is the area benefit.
2．        ot medical convince prove that fish can prevent people from the cold. Maybe the people in the place have another kind of food.
3．although ichthaid is derived from the fish. No example prove it effect on preventing cold.

这3条都对，不过好像句子不全？