Argument38 大家狂扔砖啊！~有拍必回！~~谢谢！~

BerlinbearUID??207694

ARGUMENT 38 - 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."

Outline:
1、研究报告的可行性不具说服力和可信度。
2、大量的鱼类消费与人们不常因感冒去医院之间并没有因果关系。
3、即使食鱼可以预防感冒，也并不说Ichthaid作为鱼类食品的提炼物有相同效果。而且可能会有其它副作用反而使缺席率提高。

In order to prove that using Ichthaid, a nurtritional supplement from fish oil, is a good way to prevent colds and lower absentieeism, the author appeals to the fact that a study reports people in East Meria, where is a high consumption of fish, go to see doctor seldom because of colds. Although at first glance the argument is reasonable, a close scrutiny will show that it suffers serious criticism as follows.

For one thing, the threshold problem with the argument involves that statistical reliability of the study report. In the report, it asserts that people in East Meria visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of cold in that fish consumption is very large there. However, the arguer provides no hints at all to indicate some basic information of the study. For instance, who operated the whole study, a professional team or just some laypeople? Or how did the directors of the study collect the datum about times people who come to visit doctor for colds every year and how was these data dealed with? It is very possible that people who made the study report are not academic researches but just some unprofessional persons, and even worse the conclusion is a false one shaped by some fish food retailer so that they could improve their income gravely. Lacking information about the authority and accuracy of the study report, it is hard for us to believe the fish food could prevent colds effectively.

Besides, even granted that the results of the study report is credible, there is no evidence could explain the eating fish is exactly the cause of little colds. In the report, it is just mentioned that people in East Meria visit doctor very little per year for the treatment of colds while there has a high fish consumption. However, there is no evidence to prove that eating fish is just the reason of the low colds sufferer. It is clearly that some alternatives are ignored by the arguer entirely. Such alternatives may include the possibility that the great fish consumption and people who get colds in East Meria is a mere coincidence. Perhaps the reason for people's little visit of doctor is that they believe colds are not serious enough to see doctors and they could get over by themselves. Or maybe the medical condition in East Meria is too low for every person who gets a cold to be cured immediately so that people prefer to not see a doctor when they are ill. Without a careful consideration of these possible factors, the argument has no power to convince us.

What is more, even granted that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds, it does not mean that the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil has the same function equally. It is highly possible that the efficient components preventing colds of the fish would be lost during Ichthaid's productive process deriving from fish oil. Consider, if there is no useful ingredients in Ichthaid, how could the daily use of it become a good way to significantly reduce the absenteeism? In addition, it is obviously that the author neglects some possible side-effects of consuming fish. Perhaps eating fish would result in some more severe diseases rather than colds so as to it would lead to a increasing absenteeism. As is no information provided to eliminate the likelihood of side-effects of eating fish, the argument is weak to believe.

In final analysis, the arguer fails to offer a tenable argument. The author has to provide more evidence to show that eating fish could prevent the colds and, in fact, the daily use of Icethaid could reduce the absenteeism of schools and workplaces.

[ Last edited by Berlinbear on 2005-12-27 at 12:53 ]

sallyxinduUID??2131253

ARGUMENT 38 - 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."

Outline:
1、研究报告的可行性不具说服力和可信度。
2、大量的鱼类消费与人们不常因感冒去医院之间并没有因果关系。
3、即使食鱼可以预防感冒，也并不说Ichthaid作为鱼类食品的提炼物有相同效果。而且可能会有其它副作用反而使缺席率提高。

In order to prove that using Ichthaid, a nurtritional supplement distilled from fish oil, is a good way to prevent colds and lower absentieeism, the author appeals to the fact that a study reports people in East Meria, where is a high consumption of fish, where fish consumption is high go to see doctor seldom because of colds.这里显然受了中文表达的影响。应该是，seldom go to see doctor becasue of low frenquency of catching colds 你的原句别人会理解是因为感冒所以人们很少去医院了。呵呵，逻辑就完全不对了Although at first glance the argument is reasonable, a close scrutiny will show that it suffers serious criticism as follows.

For one thing, the threshold problem with the argument involves that statistical reliability of the study report. In the report, it asserts that people in East Meria visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of cold in that fish consumption is very large there. However, the arguer provides no hints at all to indicate some basic information of the study. For instance, who operated the whole study, a professional team or just some laypeople? Or how did the directors of the study collect the datum about times that people who去了 come to visit doctor for colds every year and how was these data dealed with? It is very possible that people who made the study report are not academic researches but just some unprofessional persons, and even worse the conclusion is a false one shaped by some fish food retailer so that they could improve their income gravely. Lacking information about the authority and accuracy of the study report, it is hard for us to believe the fish food could prevent colds effectively.
禁不住要赞，这段漂亮．面面俱到，针针见血．学习～～我的这篇感觉分析得太不深入了

Besides, even granted that the results of the study report is credible, there is no evidence could 两个动词了，改成to explain the eating fish is exactly the cause of little less colds. In the report, it is just mentioned that people in East Meria visit doctor very little in a low frequency per year for the treatment of colds while while是表转折的，这里不太恰当there has a high fish consumption. However, there is no evidence to prove that eating fish is just the the only reason of for the low 后面是受害者，所以是less不是low　colds sufferer. It is clearly that some alternatives这个词其实很好很精确，但我老是忘记用，每次觉得我写阿狗的时候都用了太多的other factors，汗～～天使这里又提醒我了 are ignored by the arguer entirely. Such alternatives may include the possibility that the great fish consumption and people who get colds in East Meria is a mere coincidence.有点空，可以举具体的例子 Perhaps the reason for people's little visit of doctor is that they believe colds are not serious enough to see doctors and they could get over by themselves. Or maybe the medical condition in East Meria is too low for every person who gets a cold to be cured immediately so that people prefer to not see a doctor when they are illsick Without a careful consideration of these possible factors, the argument has no power to convince us.

What is more, even granted 换词，that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds, it does not mean that the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil has the same和后面的eaqually 重复 function equally. It is highly possible that the efficient components preventing colds of the fish would be lost during Ichthaid's productive process deriving from fish oil. Consider, if there is no useful ingredients in Ichthaid, how could the daily use of it become a good way to significantly reduce the absenteeism? In addition, it is obviously that the author neglects some possible side-effects of consuming fish. Perhaps eating fish would result in some more severe diseases rather than colds so as to 后来一个老外合适了下这种so as to一般不接句子，是接不定试．看来我们都错了，改用so that it would lead to a increasing absenteeism. As is no information provided to eliminate the likelihood of side-effects of eating fish, the argument is weak to believe.

In final analysis, the arguer fails to offer a tenable argument. The author has to provide more evidence to show that eating fish could prevent the colds and, in fact, the daily use of Icethaid could reduce the absenteeism of schools and workplaces.

结构很好，每个分析很到位．有些小错误，考试的时候注意下就好了，加油．

maylUID??2162549

楼主和组长都好厉害啊