[Big Fish]03月12日Argument158--By rokre2tt

rokre2ttUID: 2714355

According to this argument, the author indicates a study organized by the Trash-Site Safety Council, which is used to investigate whether there is some extent of correlation between the size of trash and unexplained rashes. Based on the result of survey, the council rules out the possibility. So the author concludes that we shouldn't concern living near the garbage sites. But to my opinion, there are many logical flaws in this argument.

First of all, the data's representation is incredible. The author doesn't refer the number of all the garbage sites and persons living near them. Perhaps there are so many sites and such persons in the whole nation, so the sample of five sites and 300 people examined is lack of representation. Maybe there is a contrary result in other areas, but they aren’t included in the study.

Second, the council unfairly assumes that there is linkage between the incidence of unexplained rashes and the size of trash sites, which is lack of evidence. Maybe there are other causations, such as the protective devices of the garbage sites. If there are few or even no such devices to the sites, a small garbage site will cause a worse harm than the large one. According to such an assumption lacking of evidences, the study will be misled, so the result is unsubstantial.

Third, the council ignores such a fact that there is a higher incidence of the rashes to people who live near the largest trash sites. Though it's important evidence which may convert the study's result, to keep the consistency of the conclusion, such a fact is ignored by the council. Maybe the fact has a direct correlation with the incidence of that unexplained rashes. In case of the deviation from the reality, any aberrant fact should be considered seriously.

Fourth, the council asserts the garbage sites won't be harmful to people who lives near the garbage sites based on such an investigation without sufficient evidences. But it couldn't be a creditable conclusion. Such a study can't supply sufficient data to explain whether there is correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health, also can't exclude the possibility other factors which may cause rashes, so we can't accept the conclusion made by the Trash-Site Council.

At last, the author's suggestion that we needn't impose restrictions on the size of the sites or concern too much about living near them is not proper. Because the council's conclusion is incredible, and no one can give a actual prediction. If the large sites really cause such rashes in the future, the people who live near them will be the sacrifice. Before giving such a suggestion, the author must investigate whether there is linkage between the garbage sites and people's health.

In summarize, the council’s conclusion is unsubstantial, and the author's suggestion is not proper. To get a rational explanation, there should be more details to be involved. Such as the amount of trash sites and people who live near the sites, more potential factors in the sites which could lead to rashes should be considered, more evidences which can prove the correlation between the size of trash sites and the incidence of unexplained rushes.

FloridaffUID: 2772878

According to this argument, the author indicates a study organized by the Trash-Site Safety Council, which is used to investigate whether there is some extent of correlation between the size of trash and unexplained rashes. Based on the result of survey, the council rules out the possibility. So the author concludes that we（此处应为they或者是the people living in the state） shouldn't concern living near the garbage sites. But to my opinion, there are many logical flaws in this argument.

First of all, the data's representation is incredible. The author doesn't refer the number of all the garbage sites and persons living near them. Perhaps there are so many sites and such persons in the whole nation（应该是state这个州，而不是整个nation国家吧）, so the sample of five sites and 300 people examined is lack of representation. Maybe there is a contrary result in other areas, but they aren’t included in the study.

Second, the council unfairly assumes that there is linkage between the incidence of unexplained rashes and the size of trash sites, which is lack of evidence. Maybe there are other causations, such as the protective devices of the garbage sites. If there are few or even no such devices to the sites, a small garbage site will cause a worse harm than the large one. According to such an assumption lacking of evidences, the study will be misled, so the result is unsubstantial.

Third, the council ignores such a fact that there is a higher incidence of the rashes to people who live near the largest trash sites. Though it's important evidence which may convert the study's result, to keep the consistency of the conclusion, such a fact is ignored by the council. Maybe the fact has a direct correlation with the incidence of that unexplained rashes. In case of the deviation from the reality, any aberrant fact should be considered seriously.

Fourth, the council asserts the garbage sites won't be harmful to people who lives near the garbage sites based on such an investigation without sufficient evidences. But it couldn't be a creditable conclusion. Such a study can't supply sufficient data to explain whether there is correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health, also can't exclude the possibility（此处缺少一个of吧） other factors which may cause rashes, so we can't accept the conclusion made by the Trash-Site Council.

At last, the author's suggestion that we needn't impose restrictions on the size of the sites or concern too much about living near them is not proper. Because the council's conclusion is incredible, and no one can give a actual prediction. If the large sites really cause such rashes in the future, the people who live near them will be the sacrifice. Before giving such a suggestion, the author must investigate whether there is linkage between the garbage sites and people's health.

In summarize, the council’s conclusion is unsubstantial, and the author's suggestion is not proper. To get a rational explanation, there should be more details to be involved. Such as the amount of trash sites and people who live near the sites, more potential factors in the sites which could lead to rashes should be considered, more evidences which can prove the correlation between the size of trash sites and the incidence of unexplained rushes.

楼主本篇argument写的很不错，语言也很到位，向你学习啊~