Argument187

短发mmUID: 2840480

TOPIC: ARGUMENT187 - The following appeared as part of an article in a health magazine.

"A new discovery warrants a drastic change in the diets of people living in the United States. Two scientists have recently suggested that omega -3 fatty acids (found in some fish and fish oils) play a key role in mental health. Our ancestors, who ate less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat, including omega -3 fatty acids, were much less likely to suffer from depression than we are today. Moreover, modern societies-such as those in Japan and Taiwan-that consume large quantities of fish report depression rates lower than that in the United States. Given this link between omega -3 fatty acids and depression, it is important for all people in the United States to increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression."
WORDS: 352
TIME: 00:20:00
DATE: 2010/7/27 19:38:14

This argument is well-presented, but poor logic. The argument drew the conclusion that the more fish they eat, the less depression they have. Though this conclusion was supported by the theory-omega-3 fatty acids, with some logical flaws, I can not deeply agree with it.
To begin with, in this argument, the arguer cited the suggestion of two scientists to offer the support. Yet, it is ridiculous to judge the benefit of omega-3 found in some fish and fish oils according to the suggestion without more detail data. Maybe there are other factors involved in influence the final result which seems to that ormega-3 benefit our health.
In addition, our ancestors eating more polyunsaturated fat were much less likely to suffer from depression, which is not equal with the fact that omega-3 have an active effect on the depression. Because omega-3 is a kind of polyunsaturated fat instead of polyunsaturated fat itself. There are many polyunsaturated fat maybe ‘omega-4’ do an active part on relieving the depression, mere phenomenon can not be regarded as the evidence.
What's more, the example about modern societies-such as those in Japan and Taiwan, is not a sufficient basis. Before ruling out other possibilities, we can not draw any conclusion. Maybe those regions are keen on sports or other activities reducing the depression. Or maybe they reveal the hobby of their live. Those conditions can effect on the result.
What's more, the arguer told us omega-3 was found in some fish and fish oils, not all fish and fish oils. How to choose the good type is a kind of art, so according to the argument we can not illustrate that the more fish we eat, the more healthy we are. Maybe some fish will be harmful to us. And different people differ from others, different habits, different body functions cause different effects.
In sum, if the arguer can offer more evidence to show it is good for our health that no matter what fish we eat. And it is true that ormega-3 is a key role on the treatment of depression. This argument can not convince me.