[a习作temp] 初试啼声，首场阿狗奋战...请大家拍我，有拍必会，越狠越好咯 [复制链接]

HOHO小飞
UID: 2686624

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 155
注册时间: 2009-8-21
精华: 0
帖子: 0

发表于 2010-2-25 14:42:23 |显示全部楼层

165. The 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."

In this article,author conclud that the caners the are produced by Promofoods do not have any chemicals which lead to a health risk.To support the assertion,Promofoods had do a test why did the cans course amount of consumers dizzying and having the symptom of nausea.Although this test is optimistic,it cannot prove this assertion is sound.
Firstly,the author bases on a imcomplete comparison.The incomplete comparison that three of the suspected chemicals which could make users dizzy also finded in all other kinds of canned food.As we know,some foods which are irrelative each other could produce something that course people uncomfortable effects,when they used together.That is to say,even though between these three chemicals and the main materials in all other kinds of canned food do not have any chemical reactions,a serious reactions occur between tuna and them.The author must ask for the chemists to provide the detail test result and check all the contents in the tuna can.Therefore,providing merely the imcomplete comparison without an all-round camparison proving there are not any toxic things in the tuna can,the author cannot convine me effective.
Secondly,even if I were to concede that there is not any chemicals reactions occur.The author also commits a fallacy of hasty generalization.Author conclud that the contexts of cans is healthy,and it does not have any harmful chemicals.However,we just understand that there is not something could cause the symptom of dizzy and nausea from the article.Maybe something causes lethal physical problems exist in the cans.For instance,if children eat the tuna cans which have some parasites,they will stay in the brain to affect the intellgence development of teenagers.Without addition test prove there are not any toxicants,i cannot accept the author's sweeping generalization.
Finally,Promofoods merely requested eight million cans to take a test.In my opinion,the quantity of the sample cannot represent all the cans which are produced by Promofoods.Perhaps,in the one of the production steps,some cans are polluted,but another are not.The author must take some random samples which produced in differant times and selled to differant place.
In sum,this assertion is unwarranted.The test consequence of eight million cans that were called back could not support that the contexts of cans are healthy.The author should have provided more forthright evidences,such as the althernative test that proves all the contexts in the cans are reliable is sufficient.To strengthen the argument the author shoud expend the test sample by random way.