ARGUMENT158 垃圾站与健康 求拍【有拍必回】

爱上千年的猫UID: 2476232

The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful
effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites. A total of five sites and
300 people were examined. The study revealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation
between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes
among people living in these homes. Furthermore, although it is true that people living near the
largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no
correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Therefore, the council is
pleased to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant
health hazard. We see no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any
restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.

10:35~11:02

1. statistically unreliable of the study
2. equate rashes with health
3.no significant hazard doesn't mean no risk
4. no health threat doesn't mean no environment pollution

The author asserts that there is no need to restrict the size of garbage sites or the number of homes built near the sites, on the base of a state wide study conducted by the Trash-Site Council. The study provided as evidence is to identity whether garbage sites will have harmful effects on the health of people living near the sites. The study revealed only a small statistical correlation between rashes and proximity of homes to garbage sites and therefore the council comes to a conclusion that current system of garage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. However, close scrutiny reveals several flaws of the study and thus provide poor support for the suggestion made by the author.

First of all, the author provides little information to ensure the statistical reliability of the study. We don't know where the total five sites are located and whether the 300 people examined are good representative of the whole population living near garbage sites. Unless the location information of the five garbage sites are given, we can not exclude the possibility that the result of the study is highly correlated with the environment of the five sites. Also, without proving that the 300 people can represent the whole population living near the sites, the result of the study is dubious at best.

Secondly, when referring to the result of the study, the author states the correlation is between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes. Could the unexplained rashes include all possible diseases that the sites may bring to people living near the sites? Of course not. And it is likely that the garbage sites may arouse even more severe diseases. Therefore, the council can not generalize the broad assertion that the garbage site does not significantly harm people's health.

Finally, even if we assume that garbage sites do not harm people's health at all, it is entirely possible that the sites will pollute the environment near the sites. Without ruling out the other negative effects that the garbage sites may have, the author can not suggest that no restriction should be placed on the size of garbage sites or the number of homes built near the sites.

In sum, in order to better support the study is statistically reliable, the author should provide more information about how the study is conducted. And it would be useful if the study also shows other sicknesses have no correlation with the garbage sites. In order to make the suggestion more plausible, more information that proves garbage sites will not harm the environment is needed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
已拍以下板油文章，欢迎大家指教：
2-7：issue153 ~求指导~留下链接的一定回拍~
2-7：ISSUE 130 第一次写ISSUE 求拍，有拍就回
2-7：ISSUE 56有拍必回，请留下连接
2-23：argument 53限时失败，求拍
2-23：ISSUE118 BY SadPy 求拍
2-25：ISSUE73 想象力与知识，最后一周求指教 by pluka
2-27：ISSUE171 我的第二
2-28:【big fish】2月27日issue11---by Jenius
3-1:issue208第三 argumen145t第三 马上就考 大家看看

adcolorsUID: 2256933

楼主一开始就限时和坚持写作的精神令俺由衷钦佩。也因为看楼主的文而强迫俺对一些题目和题材有更深入的思考，而不是像去年那样盲目的就开始动笔。

俺就倚老卖老的开门见山了。如果有说的不对的地方请包涵并指正。
这是俺看过的第三篇文，对argu的印象远好过issue。不过可能碰巧看到了楼主不熟悉题材的issue篇目吧。这篇文俺感觉写作手法挺老练，开头总括题目的逻辑判断大框架和下面分点逐一批驳的结构也非常清晰。遣词造句没有太大的问题，尽管还是有一些小错。不过凡人如我等，孰能无错。错误俺在后面来说吧，因为不是最重点。

下面纯属商榷，请尽情探讨：

俺同意楼主的写法，但是个人对题目本身的逻辑框架判断却略有出入。第一遍通读题目，给俺留下的印象是通篇在说健康问题-展开的调查是健康调查，详细的探讨也是疹子（被放大为健康）。楼主的观点也是直接接受了Trash-Site Safety Council这里只和俺们探讨健康问题这个潜在的前提（虽然用第四点来驳了一下，但感觉并不是攻击的主线，只是旁系）。

但是，一个打着Safety 旗号的Council真的蠢到只留心健康问题么（safety=healthy?） 或者温柔点说，决定是否要颁发限制令（结论）只是由对健康有否影响这一single effect来决定的么？

带着这样的疑问，俺再读了一次题目，觉得豁然开朗。题目第一句是：
“The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites.”诚然，任何一句话的语意都会根据背景或者个人理解不同而改变意群的组合，一如我们熟知的“下雨天留客天留我不留”，所以如果大家把重点放在“The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites.”也算无可厚非。

不过如果是俺，俺就会以他们一开始就以偏概全了来作为主线。接上几个虚退实进的让步假设来串起全文。时间关系，俺就不写英文outline了，翻来覆去就那些话，大家自己都有深刻体会啦：

Paragraph1：作者以一次针对住在站旁边的人群的健康调查来代表了修建垃圾站可能造成的有害影响。基于一个有失偏颇的所谓“无明显害处”的健康调查结果，得出了没有必要限制垃圾站规模及对在垃圾站附近修建住所也不应当设限的结论。但是我认为此文无论在逻辑推断上还是在论据的信度效度上都有许多瑕疵，将逐一抨击如下：

P2：对健康的影响能代表possible harmful effectS吗？显然不能. 因此首先整个文章的论断都是建立在一个有缺陷的逻辑基础上。Bla bla bla…[驳大逻辑]可举反例，比如环境污染，处理垃圾的噪音危害等等等等

P3：好吧，即使，我认了健康就是所有的危害了（让步，增强语气）。抛开这个荒谬前提不谈（这里呼应上文了，使内部粘连显得紧密）。这项调查的结果通篇在讲疹子，没疹子或者没狂发疹子就能代表健康没有或者不会出大问题了么？这个intermediate 的逻辑也有问题啊。[驳小逻辑]

P4：何况（再让步，增强语气）作者声称没什么人发疹子这事（用词语重复联系上下文，使内部粘连显得紧密）还是建立在一个极其不牢靠的调查之上呢？抽样随机性，样本大小，样本代表性|推广意义都有极大瑕疵的如此一个调查，信度和效度都差到极点，根本做不到convincing.此处可举无数counterexample. [把论据放到最后来驳]

P5：总之，因为作者对“harmful effects”这个item的理解一开始就存在问题（缩小了概念），对healthy problem也犯了几乎同样的错误，再加之薄弱和有失公允的论据，就贸然得出一个无比绝对的结论实在是太拿公帑当自家荷包了We see no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.

写到这里，楼主大概能看出来俺更倾向于梳理作者可能的逻辑判断过程，再去找论据这种非主干的错误。这样层层剥茧，感觉跟有力度，自己也觉得更爽一些。不过都是智者见智了。供你参考。


--------------------

最后说下，楼主有一些小错误可能需要格外留心，像你的水平稍微留心也非常容易纠正：比如can not 应做cannot;再比如之前见过你用apt，但apt是一个非常口语的词，跟你上下文的写作风格不是很协调。可以用intend之类正式一些的。

还有就是有些时候可能写快了就不顾的上下文的重复。整个名词结构做主语的时候，后面再提到就直接用代词或者换个写法吧，简练干脆,并且看起来不太多重复。比如：However, close scrutiny reveals several flaws of the study and thus provide poor support for the suggestion made by the author. 我可能会改成：However, close scrutiny reveals several flaws and thus minimizes the conclusion’s validity.

最近我上寄托都很痛苦，慢且时常抽风。评论的速度不如预期。见谅。