新G Argument36 求拍

DREAMER002UID: 3232684

5.13母亲节大阪考，Argument第一篇未限时题目：A36

The following report appeared in the newsletter of theWest Meria Public Health Council.

"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds represent the most frequently given reason for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid—a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil—as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.


求指导

This argument appears to be sound at first glance, but further reflection reveals that it is far from thoroughly reasonable. While eating a wealth of fish might help prevent colds according to the study, the author fails to establish its causal relationship with absenteeism in schools and workplaces, not to mention the supplement Ichthaid derived from fish oil. As far as I amconcerned, the argument suffers from the following flaws which render it unpersuasive as it stands.

In the argument, the author claims that colds represent the most frequently given reason for absences from school and work. Based upon this assumption, the author implies that in order to reduce absenteeism, efforts should be made to the prevention of colds. However, there is no direct evidence to support that colds have any crucial relationship with people’s absences even though they constantly give the reason of colds. It is possible that a number of people might merely take colds as an excuse for their absences. Also, probably they mistake it for colds while actually they suffer from adisease with similar symptoms which may have confused them. Moreover, itis unknown where and how this assumption is concluded. Maybe it comes from a biased survey, where only a small amount of people are selected. Only does the author provide sufficient information to demonstrate that absenteeism has significant connections with colds, can he or she assert that absences would be reduced by preventing colds.

Citing a study in nearby East Meria, the author draws the conclusion that colds can be prevented by eating plenty of fish. In this study, it is reported that in nearby East Meria where fish consumption is very high, people only get treated for colds once or twice every year. But this study has not established a direct relationship between eating more fish and getting fewer colds. We do not know that people there rarely visit the doctor for colds because they consume substantial amount of fish or it is owing to other reasons. Perhaps people in East Meria like sports and they are in good health, so they seldom catch colds, rather than because they eat fish in large quantities. Besides, it is possible that not everybody would go to see a doctor even when having a cold. It is also unclear what amount of fish do these people studied eat everyday and which percentage of them only need to get treated for colds once or twice every year.Thus, without rendering more understandable evidences ensure that more fish lead to fewer colds, this study cannot sufficiently substantiate that people can prevent colds by eating plenty of fish.

Finally, granted that eating volumes of fish can prevent colds and improve attendance, yet we cannot conclude that the supplement Ichthaid would be as effective asfish. Although Ichthaid is derived from fish oil, this argument reveals no proof that Ichthaid would have the same effect as fish on preventing colds, and especially fish has so diverse compositions that it is indefinite if it is fish oil that can prevent colds. The author would have to provide potent evidence that this supplement can prevent colds in the same way as fish does.

Overall, this argument lacks sufficientevidence to show that people are absent from school and work actually because they catch colds and by eating plenty of fish they can prevent colds, and then improve attendance. In addition, an investigation is necessary to demonstrate that the supplement Ichthaid has the same effect as fish on preventing colds.

shinian1987UID: 2797009

This argument appears to be sound at first glance, but further reflection reveals that it is far from thoroughly reasonable. While eating a wealth offish might help prevent colds according to the study, the author fails to establish its causal relationship with absenteeism in schools and workplaces, not to mention the supplement Ichthaid derived from fish oil. As far as I am concerned, the argument suffers from the following flaws which render it unpersuasive as it stands.

In the argument, the author claims that colds represent the most frequently given reason for absences from school and work. Based upon this assumption, the author implies that in order to reduce absenteeism, efforts should be made to the prevention of colds. However, there is no direct evidence to support that colds have any crucial relationship with people’s absences even though they constantly give the reason of colds. It is possible that a number of people might merely take colds as an excuse for their absences. Also, probably they mistake it for colds while actually they suffer from a disease with similar symptoms which may have confused them. Moreover, it is unknown where and how this assumption is concluded. Maybe it comes from a biased survey, where only a small amount of people are selected. Only does the author provide sufficient information to demonstrate that absenteeism has significant connections with colds, can he or she assert that absences would be reduced by preventing colds.

Citing a study in nearby East Meria, the author draws the conclusion that colds can be prevented by eating plenty of fish. In this study, it is reported that in nearby East Meria where fish consumption is very high, people only get treated for colds once or twice every year. But this study has not established a direct relationship between eating more fish and getting fewer colds. We do not know that people there rarely visit the doctor for colds because they consume substantial amount of fish or it is owing to other reasons. Perhaps people in East Meria like sports and they are in good health, so they seldom catch colds, rather than because they eat fish in large quantities. Besides, it is possible that not everybody would go to see a doctor even when having a cold. It is also unclear what amount of fish do these people studied eat everyday and which percentage of them only need to get treated for colds once or twice every year. Thus, without rendering more understandable evidences ensure that more fish lead to fewer colds, this study cannot sufficiently substantiate that people can prevent colds by eating plenty of fish.
Finally, granted that eating volumes of fish can prevent colds and improve attendance, yet we cannot conclude that the supplement Ichthaid would be as effective as fish. Although Ichthaid is derived from fish oil, this argument reveals no proof that Ichthaid would have the same effect as fish on preventing colds, and especially fish has so diverse compositions that it is indefinite if it is fish oil that can prevent colds. The author would have to provide potent evidence that this supplement can prevent colds in the same way as fish does.

Overall, this argument lacks sufficient evidence to show that people are absent from school and work actually because they catch colds and by eating plenty of fish they can prevent colds, and then improve attendance. In addition, an investigation is necessary to demonstrate that the supplement Ichthaid has the same effect as fish on preventing colds.

shinian1987UID: 2797009

nice job
建议发帖之前先排下版。

DREAMER002UID: 3232684

谢谢版主指点，以后一定注意。