|
TOPIC: ARGUMENT165 - 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."
The statement that claims Promofoods did not contain chemicals, which posed a health danger, is presented reasonable at first glance. However, there are a few logical fallacies in it after careful examination.
To begin with, the samples that Promofoods required to return may not the same sample cans that consumers ate. From the argument, Promofoods only tests samples of the recalled ones, without accurate sample number. In all likelihood, they tested the cans with ordinary level of chemicals, which is quite different from what consumers ate. If the number of samples taken was relatively low, in comparison of the number "eight million" that returned, or the samples did not typify the ones sold out, the result is unpersuasive.
In addition, even if the samples taken are enough and representative, the result is still doubtful, since the author fails to mention the proportion of the three remaining suspected chemicals founded. What if these substances are much more than other canned foods? In that case, these three chemicals are more likely to cause dizziness and nausea. And it is Promofoods to blame for.
Finally, even supposing the proportions of the three remaining suspected chemicals are quite normal, there also exist other possibilities leading customers’ dizziness and nausea. For instance, except those eight most common substances, much more chemicals that can contribute to the same symptoms. Maybe it is a quite rare chemical that lead consumers to get dizzy and nausea. In that case, a thorough examination is necessary for finding the truth.
In sum, the writer makes a vague statement about their test. To convince others, he or she should clarify the number of samples that they tested, the proportions of the three remaining suspected chemicals. Also, a thorough test of other chemicals which could cause the same symptoms should be helpful in finding out the outcome.
论证还是不够 字数不够就不管了。。。 | 
发表于 2010-3-11 20:45:39
转发
签到领寄托币
GO
