ARG初次写作求批改

wasrippleUID: 2985357

"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods."

The conclusion from Promofoods that dizziness and nausea discussed in the complaints are not resulted from its tuna cans is drawn from the experiment results from a group of chemists from the enterprise. The results reveal that five out of eight poisonous chemicals that may cause dizziness and nausea are not traced in test samples, while the other three chemicals present in the samples are also found in other canned foods.

There are numerous reasons to discredit this conclusion. First of all, the fact that the chemists conducting the test are all from Promofoods severely compromised the validity of the test. Since these chemists are affiliated to the company it is highly unlikely that they will remain neutral in the process of the test. Promofoods may force them to alter test results or set up the test in such a way that adverse test results are less probable. And it is natural for those chemists to yield, because they as employees of the company may want to protect the company from incurring possible losses.

Besides that, the chemists only tested eight chemicals that are most commonly blamed for causing dizziness and nausea. This is clearly not enough to conclude that the canned tuna from Promogoods does not pose a health risk, as there may be other deleterious chemicals or pathogens existing in those tuna cans. In fact, it is possible that there are two or more chemicals which may not cause dizziness and nausea simultaneously but may bring one of the two symptoms separately.

Furthermore, even though the three chemicals found by the Promofoods chemists are also present in other canned foods, it is unsound to assume that the three chemicals do not have adverse effect to human body. Actually it has already been discussed that these three chemicals are considered substances that are most blamed for causing dizziness and nausea. Their presence in other products may be justified as the amount is extremely low. Yet if a large quantity of these three chemicals is found in the tuna cans of Promofoods, then consuming such tuna cans may be healthily risky.

Last but not least, there is no information about the size of the sample. If the sample size is too small, then it is possible that other canned tuna may contain those chemicals that threaten the health of consumers.

一共花了半个多小时，第一篇难免有各种各样的问题，欢迎各位批评指导。

happily1989UID: 2807228

水平实在有限 见谅哈。。
The conclusion from Promofoods that dizziness and nausea discussed in the complaints are not resulted from its tuna cans is drawn from the experiment results from a group of chemists from the enterprise. The results reveal that five out of eight poisonous[手头的林格斯过期了，用在线字典查了一下,poisonous好像是个副词，形容词形式应该用poison。] chemicals that may cause dizziness and nausea are not traced in test samples, while the other three chemicals present in the samples are also found in other canned foods.

There are numerous reasons to discredit this conclusion. First of all, the fact that the chemists conducting the test are all from Promofoods severely compromised the validity of the test. Since these chemists are affiliated to the company it is highly unlikely that they will remain neutral in the process of the test. Promofoods may force them to alter test results or set up the test in such a way that adverse test results are less probable. And it is natural for those chemists to yield, because they as employees of the company may want to protect the company from incurring possible losses. Besides that, the chemists only tested eight chemicals that are most commonly blamed for causing dizziness and nausea. This is clearly not enough to conclude that the canned tuna from Promogoods does not pose a health risk, as there may be other deleterious chemicals or pathogens existing in those tuna cans. In fact, it is possible that there are two or more chemicals which may not cause dizziness and nausea simultaneously but may bring one of the two symptoms separately.[我觉得这个理由比较牵强，恶心和眩晕感觉是两个差不多的症状，这里如果改成 有些化学物质本身不会引起眩晕和恶心，但是两种放在一起有可能会导致恶心或眩晕 我觉得会更好一点 （个人意见）]

Furthermore, even though the three chemicals found by the Promofoods chemists are also present in other canned foods, it is unsound to assume that the three chemicals do not have adverse effect to human body. Actually it has already been discussed that these three chemicals are considered substances that are most blamed for causing dizziness and nausea. Their presence in other products may be justified as the amount is extremely low. Yet if a large quantity of these three chemicals is found in the tuna cans of Promofoods, then consuming such tuna cans may be healthily risky.

Last but not least, there is no information about the size of the sample. If the sample size is too small, then it is possible that other canned tuna may contain those chemicals that threaten the health of consumers.
没有结尾段总结的话会不会不太好？
个人感觉样本容量大小问题有点儿吹毛求疵，不应该单独列为一个错误，只需要在其他错误的后面顺带提一句。例如可以和第二个辩驳点一起说，让步一下即使调查公正，样本用量也有可能有问题。
PS：感觉你的语言真好 好羡慕。 用了很多红宝的词汇，我每次都想不起来用 哎。。。


附我列的这道题的提纲：

作者观点：他们的罐头不含有对健康有害的成分。

论据：
1． 召回的罐头样本中，不含有常见的致使恶心眩晕的化学成分中的五种
2． 剩下三种即使有，别的产品中也有。

反驳：
1． 眩晕不一定由于里面含有有害化学成分所致，有可能是由于有病菌，或者人们经常和其他东西混合使用，而混合的时候会产生有害物质。即使含有有害化学物质未必能检测到，有可能某种化学物质需要加热或者某两种化学物质在一定条件下发生化学反应才能转变成导致恶心眩晕的化学物质。
2． 即使是可以检测到的化学物质，未必是那8中最主要的，有可能是其他的。
3． 即使是那3中检查含有的，也没有说明含量问题。
4． 取样是否科学，调查人是否公正。

wasrippleUID: 2985357

2# happily1989

谢谢了啊。我这是第一次写arg实在是不知道怎么开头结尾，至于模板什么的也是完全没有头绪。以后互相帮忙吧。

happily1989UID: 2807228

3# wasripple
第一次写就这么不错啊 崇拜~

感觉还是不要被模板束缚住，我现在在想，所谓模板就是一个固定的套路，不要发展成填空作文。对于同一类错误，每一次都用一个固定的套路去辩驳，相同的词组搭配，相同的辩证方式，相同的举例思路；有利于加快成文速度。小西在《GRE作文高分王道》里说的很对，同一篇作文，写出来两个版本，都是不合格的。但是如果发展成了千篇一律的填空作文，未免得不偿失~~

加油加油~