[a习作temp] Argument38 第6篇让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！ [复制链接]

boylian03
UID: 190273

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 130
注册时间: 2004-12-24
精华: 0
帖子: 0

发表于 2005-3-29 08:50:45 |显示全部楼层

Argument38  第6篇让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：boylian    共用时间：28分44秒    401 words
从2005年2月29日8时22分到2005年2月29日8时28分
------题目------
The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West 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 are the reason most frequently given 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.'
------正文------
Merely depended on a series of unwarranted assumptions and dubious evidence, the statement draws a conclusion that people work in school and factory will significantly reduce absenteeism if they use of Ichthaid, which is a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out that a study reports people in nearby visit doctor less for colds which are the reason most frequently given for absences. On the surface, the argument appears to be somewhat logical, however, close scrutiny of it reveals several critical fallacies,  which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the author unfairly concludes that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds but he does not provide any evidence. As we know, it  is most likely that other factors might also contribute to the phenomenon. For example, the weather in nearby East Meria is warm and changes mildly so that people may not get cold easily which other places would be the case. Or the citizens in East Meria exercise regularly therefore could resist the cold virus effectively. If so, just eating a lot of fish would not prevent colds and lower absenteeism.

Furthermore, even if eating fish could prevent colds, however, the author fails to convice me that using Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, could have the same effect. There may be some substance which may prevent the colds in the fish if the fish could reduce colds just as the arguer maintains, but there is no evidence the substance must be the fish oil. Maybe it is the fish liver or the fish spleen which actually do the effect. Unless the arguer can rule out these and other alternative possibilities, I cannot accept the author's conclusion.

Last but not least, even if the author can substantiate the foregoing assumptions, I remain unconvinced that daily use of Ichthaid could lower absenteeism. The author should at least supply the information about what the actually reason about the absences. Common sense tells us that people sometimes tell a lie to get a rest; actually, they do not catch a cold. If so, we would need better management to solve the problem rather than daily eating of Ichthaid.

In summary, though the argument seems to be plausible, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.