argumet2我的第一篇 有拍有回

binghuoshenlongUID: 2670882

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."
WORDS: 337
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-2-27 19:06:32

In this editorial, the writer points that communities unable to afford the cost of ridding their drinking water of clormium 5 should replace the drinking fountains in public buildings with bottled-water coolers. To warrant this statement, the writer cites that a study shows that water containing clormium 5 may lead to the increased incidence of allergies and skin rashs. Besides, another test revealed the clomium 5 has entered the water supply of several areas. In addition, even we can remove clormium 5 from water which however will costs a lot. Nevertheless, close examination of the reasons show that the writer's logical analyses are not so complete and correct.

First, the writer did not provide information about the organization who make the preliminary study. Thus, the authority of study is open to doubt. And the very element causing the allergies and skin rashes may be another material contained by the water containing clormium 5 at the same time. The study should be experimented by precise comparison and control. Without rolling out these necessary information, we can not carelessly assure the element is clormium 5.

Second, that test of drinking water of only several areas shows the problem does not means every area is the same situation. Maybe the government need not spend a lot on solving the problem. So the residents need not pay by themselves.

Thirdly, the mean used now to remove the clormium 5 costs a lot. We can ask for some universities or relevant institution to try some other way to remove the material, which can costs less. Because replacing the drinking fountains may be also a complex project.

In sum, the writer's conclusion is false logically. To better justify the conclution, we need to know whether clormium 5 is the main reason causing the allergies and skin rashes but not other similar material. We are also need to know if every area has the same problem and if the government can pay for it. Information whether some other means costing less can solve the problem is also helpful.