Argument165 8501请大家点评！

cactus_gUID: 171393

The following appeared in a business magazine.
'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.'
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer concludes that Promofoods products did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. The argument seems logical at first glance. However, the test cited to support this conclusion is problematic for several reasons.

To begin with, whether the test is effective and reliable is open to doubt. How did the test be conducted? Are there any people who have specialized knowledge about medical test? Was the test adapt to the national standard? If the test was conducted by those who do not have relevant knowledge or who are not clear with the standard, the result of the test is hard to make people believe. Besides, were all the recalled cans selected randomly? How many of the eight million cans have been tested? If there were merely a small percentage of the whole cans are tested, we cannot make sure whether other ones have problems or not. Therefore, without considering all these factors relevant to a test, it is too arbitrary for the arguer to make the assumption.

Second, even the test is conducted as a normal correct procedure, the result of the test is still open to worry. As the arguer mentions, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the test cans, however, it is entirely possible that there are many other bacterium which might not be the most common chemical while can still be able to cause the dizziness and nausea. No information has been provided about other substances contained in tested cans. We are not sure whether this substance measure up or not. Thus, from a medical angle, we cannot ignore any possibility that would endanger people's health.

Finally, we cannot infer that the three remaining suspected chemicals do not have a negative affect on human's health simply because they naturally exist in all other kinds of canned foods. The phenomenon of existence  does not necessarily indicates rationality. It could happen that these chemicals have a chronic dangerous affect on human. At the beginning it might not behave apparent while it may cause severe diseases after people keep taking for a long period of time. Without exact test or convincing evidence to show that they are salubrious enough, it is too absurd for the arguer to claims so.

In conclusion, the argument is not as persuasive as it stands. To strengthen this argument, the arguer would have to ensure the reliability of the test and  provide more details about the causation of dizziness and nausea. Besides, the arguer also have to convince us that whether the three suspected chemicals are harmful or not.

cleonlxUID: 172606

先占位子，今天要出去办事。回来再看。

pirrorUID: 173889

还有一个点 这些chemists都是这个厂商的，在遇到这种投诉争端的情况下，应该交由第三方独立的研究机构来检测，否则很难保证结果的客观公正性，也很难说服消费者

cactus_gUID: 171393

Pirror说得有道理，是应该考虑到这一点，我只说了test是否有效，应该点到这个问题，能周全深刻不少，谢谢！
cleonlx 偶这里先谢过啦：）
这里是偶的邮箱 cactus_g@eyou.com
你如果愿意得话，可以把你得作文发到这里，互相帮助：）

cleonlxUID: 172606

看了看，已经很不错了，语法错误也很少了，不错啊！继续努力！

第二段很不错，有点three cup of coffee那篇范文的味道。

other bacterium which might not be the most common chemical

细菌和化学物质可不能等同。在这里没有必要换词，我认为，对于给出的概念，全文都用这个给出的表达比较好，必尽，美国佬也不聪明，频繁的换词便会造成他每看到一个地方都觉得是新概念，然后他要思考这是不是和原题所说的是一个东西，这就会影响他的阅读。把握不好的话，让他认为你说的和原题提出的概念不是一个东西，那就麻烦了。

pirror的那一点的确是很大的攻击点，值得一写。

关于最后一个论证点，我觉得潜在影响虽然可以驳，但是力度不够。
我觉得，抓住另外的一个点的话，就很有力度了。
amount。作者没有提供另外三种化学物质在别的can里的amount和Promofoods的tunafish can里的amount，有可能，P的can里面的含量已经达到了可致病的量而其它的can里面只有少量的含量而不足以致病。

对了，有空的话，帮我看看我的ISSUE吧，才开始写，好惨啊…………
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=214727