【Big Fish】3月12日Argument 158-By 小艾

cinziataoUID: 2759811

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
入组后的第一篇argu, 对照着前辈们给的instruction摸索着写的，真心求拍^_^

The arguer concluded in the study that the current system of garbage sites is arranged in a proper way that would not pose negative effect on the residents’ health. To justify the claim, the arguer points out that the existing infective chance, on the basis of a nationwide study, is too slim to cause worry. Meanwhile, he also notes that there is no direct link between the garage sites’ arrangement and people’s health status. The argument appears to be somehow reasonable at first glance, however, further reflection reveals that it suffers from a series of critical fallacies.

To begin with, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. In the first place, the sample of five sites and 300 people for the study is far from sufficient to be claimed as a statewide one. Depending on the total number of garbage sites and population of the country, it is entirely possible that with so many people uncovered in the survey, the result tends to be ambiguous. Also, the arguer fails to make it clear whether he has taken different situations of the sites and density of near residents into account. Perhaps the five sites selected adopt the most up-to-date technologies in the disposal of wastes so that the negative influence on human body has already been cut to minimum, when comparing the other sites that without sufficient resource to take that method.

Secondly, although unexplained rashes is a possible result of the site’s pollution as the arguer asserts in the study, it is not necessarily the only symptom of the possible harmful effects on people’s health. There might also be other problems such as respiratory diseases or mental disturbance caused by the unpleasant smell. Thus, it seems to be hasty for the arguer to reach the general conclusion while carelessly overlooking many other factors.

In addition, there is a glaring logic flaw in the arguer’s conclusion where he commits the fallacy of oversimplification. The size of the a garbage site obviously has no direct link with causing potential health attack, instead, It is the way it processes the garbage and the wastes it discharges that altogether determine its safety standard. For example, a comparatively small-scaled site with a less-developed idea, which pours the foul water after into the nearby river would undeniably cause a much severe regional pollution and a larger amount of people would be affected. And a huge site, on the other hand, may put all the negative effect under perfect control by taking scientific and environmental friendly measure to run the business. Without considering these plausible explanations, the arguer's conclusion can hardly appear to be convicing and well-round.

To sum up, the arguer fails to validate the study on the basis of insufficient and hardly representative samples. To bolster it, the arguer should provide clear statistical evidence on a larger survey scale and identify better the diverse factors of different sites so as to give a more persuasive recommendation.