【Big Fish】3月12日Argument158-By 隐雾

隐雾UID: 2776185

Argument No.158
158.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.

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

To substantiate the assertion that the current system of garbage sites does not seriously risk people's health and that it is unnecessary to restriction the size of sites and the number of homes built nearby, the author analyzes a survey only. It is natural that a study of relevant subjects indicates reasonable and critical conclusions. However, the process and details of the study are not presented which are significant to its reliability. And we can readily find holes in his reasoning such as the definition of 'health hazard', the link between the unexplained rashes and the harm caused by garbage site, and so on.

First of all, the only proof of the argument needs to be studied because the statement is vague. What the author's reasoning relies on is the study, with a sample of 5 sites and 300 people, conducted by the council around the state. The more information about the sample is omitted which is quite critical. The population of the state and the total quantity of the garbage sites in the state determine whether the sample size is large enough to ensure that the result of the study is applicable around the state. For example, if the population is 3 million and the number of the garbage sites is 10000 while only 300 and 5 are picked from the whole in the study, we can hardly say that such study stands for the case of the entire state. Besides, the argument doesn't present where the five sites locate or how many of the 300 people examined live near the sites. Perhaps the study is conducted convincingly; whereas, only a list of stat tells clearly.

The author also takes it for granted that the incidence of unexplained rashes among people stands for the health hazard caused by garbage sites. But the argument doesn't point out what the unexplained rashes are and how it seems to be the harmful effect of such sites. There must be other feedback that can prove the harm for that the garbage sites pollute the air around in certain degree. In addition, the so-called 'a small statistical correlation' needs a clear explanation or related data and then the judgment will be accepted easily.

The author also points out that the fact that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes contributes little to the correlation the study works on. This is nowhere more ridiculous than on the comparison of the site size with the incidence of rashes. If the viewpoint is true, the study appears meaningless for its lacking basis, which is the statistical result.

If the study is conducted undoubtedly, the reasoning still suffers several fallacies. Though the garbage sites haven't harmed people nearby up to now, is there potential risks in store? Though current sites don't pose a significant health hazard, is it almost the same when it comes to a larger size or larger population living near the sites? Though current system has no problem, do the size of sites and population nearby belong to the system?

Overall, fallacies of both study and reasoning are responsible for the unconvincing conclusion.

jjooyyUID: 2704028

To substantiate the assertion that the current system of garbage sites does not seriously risk people's health and that it is unnecessary to restriction the size of sites and the number of homes built nearby, the author analyzes a survey only. It is natural that a study of relevant subjects indicates reasonable and critical conclusions. However, the process and details of the study are not presented which are significant to its reliability. And we can readily find holes(chinglish) in his reasoning such as the definition of 'health hazard', the link between the unexplained rashes and the harm caused by garbage site, and so on.

First of all, the only proof of the argument needs to be studied because the statement is vague. What the author's reasoning relies on is the study, with a sample of 5 sites and 300 people, conducted by the council around the state. The more information about the sample is omitted which is quite critical. The population of the state and the total quantity of the garbage sites in the state determine whether the sample size is large enough to ensure that the result of the study is applicable around the state. For example, if the population is 3 million and the number of the garbage sites is 10000 while only 300 and 5 are picked from the whole in the study, we can hardly say that such study stands for the case of the entire state. (有具体数字，很好！)Besides, the argument doesn't present where the five sites locate or how many of the 300 people examined live near the sites. Perhaps the study is conducted convincingly; whereas, only a list of stat tells clearly.

The author also takes it for granted that the incidence of unexplained rashes among people stands for the health hazard caused by garbage sites. But the argument doesn't point out what the unexplained rashes are and how it seems to be the harmful effect of such sites.(相反，作者认为是没有危害，审题！) There must be other feedback that can prove the harm for that the garbage sites pollute the air around in certain degree. In addition, the so-called 'a small statistical correlation' needs a clear explanation or related data and then the judgment will be accepted easily.

The author also points out that the fact that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes contributes little to the correlation the study works on. This is nowhere more ridiculous than on the comparison of the site size with the incidence of rashes. If the viewpoint is true, the study appears meaningless for its lacking basis, which is the statistical result. 这段不是很懂。。。

If the study is conducted undoubtedly,(无疑做了这个study，又是chinglish了) the reasoning still suffers several fallacies（这边都是一种错误吧，不能随便用fallacies呢）. Though the garbage sites haven't harmed people nearby up to now, is there potential risks in store? Though current sites don't pose a significant health hazard, is it almost the same when it comes to a larger size or larger population living near the sites? Though the current system has no problem, do the size of sites and population nearby belong to the system?

Overall, fallacies of both study and reasoning are responsible for the unconvincing conclusion.一句话，还可以再加点建议什么的

好的地方是没有用千篇一律的模板，有个人风格