Argument 81 范文

tesolchina_RAUID：3675555

Argument 81
Arg 81chemicals cause dizziness and nausea

The following appeared in a business magazine.
As a result of numerous complaints of dizziness and nausea on the part of consumers of Promofoods tuna, the company requested that eight million cans of its tuna be returned for testing. Promofoods concluded that the canned tuna did not, after all, pose a health risk. This conclusion is based on tests performed on samples of the recalled cans by chemists from Promofoods; the chemists found that of the eight food 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 small amounts of the three remaining suspected chemicals but pointed out that these occur naturally in all canned foods.

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be addressed in order to decide whether the conclusion and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to the questions would help to evaluate the conclusion.


G1: As a result of numerous complaints of dizziness and nausea on the part of consumers of Promofoods tuna, the company requested that eight million cans of its tuna be returned for testing.

C1: Promofoods concluded that the canned tuna did not, after all, pose a health risk.

G2: This conclusion is based on tests performed on samples of the recalled cans by chemists from Promofoods; G3: the chemists found that of the eight food chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans.

G4: The chemists did find small amounts of the three remaining suspected chemicals but pointed out that these occur naturally in all canned foods.


A1 (G2, C1): The chemists had conducted the tests independently and professionally.

A2 (G2, C1): The sampling methodology is valid.

A3 (G3, C1): Chemicals not in the list may cause dizziness and nausea.

A4 (G4, C1): The amounts of the chemicals are within the safety thresholds.


conclusion: canned tuna did not pose a health risk
evidence: samples of the recalled cans
8 food chemicals blamed for dizziness and nausea (5 not found)
3 chemicals found in small amount (naturally ; natural level)

The company argued that the tuna in question was safe based on the results of chemical analysis of the sample. While the conclusion is what the company wished for, there are a number of questions about the impartiality of the chemists, the sampling method, the amount of the 3 chemicals and other possible causes of symptoms that we need to investigate before we could accept the conclusion.

To begin with, we need to know if the chemists from the company were able to conduct the tests independently and professionally. Since the companys reputation is at stake, it is important to look into whether the chemists conducting the tests may have the incentives to manipulate the tests to help produce results that are in favor of the company. It is important to check, for example, if the chemists had received any pecuniary benefits from the company. Or maybe they are under the pressure from the top management to release a report that would relieve the company from any liability.

We also need to know more about the sampling methodology to evaluate the validity of the result. The key issue here is each can recalled must have the equal opportunity to be sampled. If certain groups of cans are more likely than other groups to be selected for testing, the results would not accurately reflect the condition of all cans. Various sampling methods could be chosen to ensure the validity of the test, e.g. systematic sampling. But we need to know the proper measures have been taken to collect the samples in a professional way.

Another question we need to ask is whether there are chemicals other than the group of 8 that might lead to the symptoms of dizziness and nausea. There might be some chemicals that are less well known but will cause the said symptoms. Focusing on the 8 chemicals alone, the chemists may overlook the other potential causes of the symptoms. In addition, the symptoms of dizziness and nausea may be a result of some more serious medical conditions, e.g. Hepatitis A, which might be caused by some contaminated cans. If this is the case, it would be inadequate to focus on the chemicals known for causing the symptoms directly. A more thorough medical check-up would help better understand the conditions of the victims and help pinpoint the source of the problems.

The final question to ask is about the amount of the 3 chemicals found in the samples. It may be true that such chemicals occur naturally in all canned foods. But what really matters is whether the amount of the chemicals have exceeded the threshold of safety. Even if the amount of each individual chemical may be within the safe zone, we need to know whether the cumulative harm caused by all three chemicals may reach a tipping point leading to the symptoms. More in-depth analyses of the 3 chemicals, both quantitative and qualitative, are necessary to determine if they are related to the accidents.

In conclusion, it is probably more reasonable to commission a group of independent analyst to study the canned food in question following the proper measures of random sampling. The questions discussed above will have to be answered to determine if the conclusion is reasonable.



Argument范文与提纲目录(tesolchina)
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-2030117-1-1.html