【Big Fish】3月11日Argument165-By Bruce

cloudwind-greUID: 2462220

In the argument, Promofoods obtains theirs conclusion that their cans do not pose a health risk at all on the base of their testing samples. At the first glance, its results seems to be persuasive, however, their statistics are doubtable after consideration.

First, the Promofoods choosed eight kinds of poisonous chemists to tests whether their product will posed a health risk or not. This method was incorrect becuase many other chemicals, especially those maybe be result in dizziness or nausea, were not included in their test. It is possible that some other chemicals can also contributo to the dizziness and nausea of their consumers. Furthermore, their technology to test should be given more detail. If their skills were not eligible to test the exist of those chemicals, we can conclude that their conclusion is unsound.

Even their only eight chemicals that will result in dizziness and nausea, and even the technology is qualified enought to detest the chemists, the result of Promofoods is still not convincing because their are still three possible chemists exist in their products. The argument of Promofoods that these three chemists also exist in other kinds of canned foods is unfounded becuase they do not provide the the proof whether those other kinds of cans are poisonous or not. If those cans also cause cause dizziness and nausea, the conclusion of Promofoods is not solid.

Furthermore, even the Promofoods testify other kind of cans do not result in dizziness and nausea, we still need more proofs, that is, the amount of those three chemists in the cans of Promofoods and in other cans. Supposed the amount of those three chemists are ten times of those in other cans, we can invalidate the result of Promofoods' result.

In sum, the conclusion of Promofoods is not cogent for their statistics are lack of further details to support. In order to justify their conclusion, further informations about whether other chemists can also result in dizziness and nausea or not, about the technology the applied to test the chemists, about whether other cans cause health risk or not, and about the amount of the poisonous chemists in their products.

topranUID: 2310216

In the argument, Promofoods obtains theirs conclusion that their cans do not pose a health risk at all on the base of their testing samples. At the first glance, its results seems to be persuasive, ho ...
cloudwind-gre 发表于 2010-3-11 20:09

我咋觉得字不够呢，且点都驳的弱弱的，Bruce 这篇是你好好写的么，还是你就应付差事胡写了下？

cloudwind-greUID: 2462220

2# topran

算认真的了,不过对A我一直搞不清应怎样写,有机会要多多交流一下