【Big Fish】03月11日Argument165--By rokre2tt

rokre2ttUID: 2714355

Based on the study of chemists from Promofoods, the company asserts that their tuna cans don’t contain chemicals which may result in the symptoms. But I think the conclusion is made too hastily, for Promofoods could’t guarantee the representation and the credibility of the study, and other alternative factors aren't included in the study. So we can see there are many logical flaws in the argument after a comprehensive analysis.

First of all, neither we know how many tuna cans has been sold out last year, nor where they have been sold to, so the representation of the eight million cans recalled is a doubt. If Promofoods sold out more than hundreds of millions tuna cans last year, and they are sold to lots of countries, but the study is circumscribed to America only, the representation of the result is very unsubstantial.

Second, the study which is organized by such chemists attached to Promofoods is incredible. It is obvious that chemists should keep neutral in the study. Otherwise, we have reasons to doubt the result of such a study. Perhaps the chemists have co-interest in this event. To protect the Promofoodds as well as themselves, they have some personal trend in the study, and finally they make a conclusion that there are not linkages between the symptoms and the tuna cans.

Third, Promofoods doesn't exclude such a possibility that just the three remaining chemicals are the real causation of dizziness and nausea. The chemists test the recalled cans and don't find five of eight chemicals which are most commonly blamed for leading to the symptoms, so they make a conclusion that cans are irrelevant with the dizziness and nausea. But to my opinion, without an actual test result, any presumption is suspect.

At last, even the study's result is right, there will still be some other chemicals out of the eight common ones which result in the symptoms. It’s clearly that the test only points to eight most commonly chemicals which may cause symptoms of dizziness and nausea, but there may be more compositions which can pose such a health risk in the cans. If the condition is true, we can't guarantee the cans won't invoke such symptoms even after eight chemicals have been precluded.

To sum up, we need more evidences to support the conclusion. They may include, the data about Promofoods's sales lat year, the three remaining chemicals' test result, whether there are other chemicals can cause the symptoms except the eight commonly ones, and if needed,
we should replace the chemists to guarantee the study's credibility.