ARGUMENT158【六人行小组8.3】by odie

odiehereUID: 2502172

题目：ARGUMENT158 - 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.
字数：446
用时：0:30:00
日期：2010/8/3

The optimistic conclusion made by the Trash-Site Safety Council is not convincing because it is based on a research conducted without scientific procedure and reasonable analysis. I will put some of the weak points of the research as follows:

First of all, the study lacks an appropriate sampling procedure in choosing representative trash sites and homes to conduct the research. A small number of five sites and 300 homes is far from large enough to yield data for a correlation analysis. It is also unknown whether these sites and homes chosen are representative of all trash sites and affected homes in the state in terms of home-site proximity and site size. For example, a small correlation between home proximity to trash sites and rashes incidents may be resulted from the fact that homes studied are generally too far from the site that they are lightly affected. Similarly, there may exist the possibility that the small size of the five sites studied has resulted in a lack of correlation between the size and rash incidents. Without more convincing sampling procedure and detailed information about the home and site sample, we are not sure about the validity of the conclusion generalized from this sample.

Furthermore, the study does not have a control group to serve as a baseline so as to make a comparison between the homes living near the trash site and those far from it. This is important because even if there is truly no correlation between the rash incidents and trash site size or proximity, it is possible that homes living near the trash are badly affected by it-- and to the same extent. In other words, no difference in the degree of heath threat among homes does not guarantee no threat. Before the council concludes that trash does not affect families, further evidence must be given to prove that there is no significance in the state of heath between ordinary homes and homes near trash sites.

Moreover, we are not sure about some important details of the study. One is that the time span of the study is not specified. Probably the long-term tragic effects of the trash sites on homes cannot be easily detected in a short-term study. Another is that the standard to define rashes cases is not provided. To what extent shall a health problem be classified as a rash? And what kind of rash is called "unexplained rash" by the council? All these details may be vital for an accurate analysis of the health issue.

In conclusion, before the research is improved in terms of sampling procedure,
research method, data analysis and also various other details, the conclusion is not well-supported enough to influence the decision of the state government.