argument 38 求鉴定

xianyejiayuUID: 2803531

In this argument, the author claims that it eating fish has some great beneficial of cold just based on the mere fact that a high consumption of fish in E and recommending the daily use of I as a efficient way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. It seems logical at first glance, but further reflect reveals some flaws as it stands.

To begin with, just relying on the high level of fish consumption, we can hardly infer having more fish is the necessary factors contribute to a hale, robust, and healthy body. Maybe East Meria is abounded in fish, such a low price appealing residents to consuming the fish, which is fresh and filled with some special kinds of protein. There is no evidence to support that it is not the local people purchasing such an amount of fish. Or perhaps residents here are favor of eating fish, the unique way of cooking and the delicious savor make visitors and settlers never forget and endow a great desire to having fish. Furthermore, even though the residents really have a high consumption of fish, and they are surely enthusiastic about the fish, can the fact indicate the same situation in our country? People here may have a serious tendency to mainly having vegetables, or otherwise the price of fish is so high that scarce of people can afford it. If it is in this case, the conclusion the author mentioned is groundless and unconvincing.


Furthermore, based on the mere fact that people in East Meria are favor of fish and have a high level consumption of fish, it is ridiculous to represent the need of fish attribute to the residents with healthy body, visiting the doctor only once or twice. As we all know, visiting doctors is not the only way to treat for ourselves, we may not go to see the doctor when we catch a cold not too much seriously. Perhaps the residents in East Meria take some effective medicine instead of visiting doctors. Without citing the condition in our country, which is entirely possible that we visit for doctors once or even lower per year, people are more healthy and hale in East Meria seems groundless. Additionally, other factors, such as a nonpolluting environment, the palatable climate, make a lower rate of catching cold. Without eliminating these possibilities, it seems unwarranted that residents in East Meria possess a more robust body than in our country and having fish may not be the mainly reason of staying health.

Additionally, granted that having fish can prevent catching cold in some degree, there is no evidence to substantiate that Ichthaid can do the same effect. Without detailed information to prove the conclusion, the affect of the Ichthaid is open to doubt. Perhaps other ingredients contribute to preventing of cold. On other aspect, the author assumes that it is the cold make absences from work and school, cannot there be some people just take cold as an excuse in order to have a short break or do something of his own? The author fails to take these alternatives into consideration, the conclusion is unreliable.

All in all, without more detailed and scientific information about the fish, contributing to preventing cold, the conclusion is unpersuasive. To better evaluate the argument, a relevent relationship between fish and catching cold should be given.

kidsonxianUID: 3001754

1# xianyejiayu

注意：逻辑链中，红色是考生选择批判对象；要看看自己有没有抓住逻辑链末端的推导；




少写了一些很重要的东西，原文的结论是建议每天吃那种药，但是，即使Ichthaid真的从鱼油中提炼，也真的是有效成分，也真的能放感冒，又怎么样？按照楼主写的argu文章，就只能承认必须天天嗑药了；真的如此吗？可见，这里楼主犯了一个致命的错误；这就是结论的前提没有得到削弱；看逻辑链；

逻辑链：本市人多吃鱼，本市人少看病、缺席-----吃鱼有效防止病（病是缺席主要原因）-----吃鱼防止缺席（Ichthaid从鱼油中提炼）-----吃Ichthaid，防止缺席-----建议每天吃Ichthaid

其实这篇文章的主要几点都找到了，第三段的内容有重复之疑，可以修改合并，减少过多的例子；要加上最后的逻辑削弱；还有，第二段第一二句有用，后面的不着边，纯粹扯淡，删了吧~~（论点与论据不相符）；第四段还行；整体框架可以改成这样，从最主要的地方，即逻辑链末端，出发，倒着写；

还有，第三段虽然找到了，却没能很好的批判，而是绕道而行；为神马不直接批判吃鱼不一定能防感冒，而跑去说本市人身体强壮的原因（蔬菜神马的）呢？？为神马去批判病了不看病呢？？这些都是很扯淡的行为，因为从正常逻辑来看，病了就得看病；你的着重点应该放回去“吃鱼与防病没有必然关系”；举例来说，吃鱼又怎样？有的人吃鱼好，有人吃了鱼过敏，吃海鱼还可能中毒；记住，要抓紧你要批判的地方，而不是去帮它找原因；因为你说那城市的人可能吃很多蔬菜，我也可以说那城市人可能不吃，你说他们不去看病，我说他们可能去看病；对吧？？所以呢，不要莫名的原因，要推导的过程；