Argument38 !请赐教!最高频！被我拍过的来复仇亚

sblbaslerUID: 175229

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.'

In this argument, the arguer concludes that everyone of West Meria should take Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To substantiate the claim, the arguer proclaims that colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work. In addition, the arguer cites the result of a recent study that the consumption of fish can prevent from suffering from colds. While this argument has some merit, it is vulnerable i several critical flaws that seriously undermine the line of reasoning.

First, in the very inception of the argument the arguer commits a fallacy of False Analogy ------it is not necessary to conclude that the way to East Meria people, in terms of consumption of fish, that can avoid colds will be as effective as to West Meria people. We do not know that what the relationship between the two groups of people is; we do not know that what is the difference of environment in the two places; we do not know what is the distinction between the way they live; We do not know more. However, all those we do not know can contribute a lot to the effect that the consumption of fish could bring to us. Therefore it is imperil to act the same treatment on the West Meria people as on the East Meria people.

Second, due to failure of establishing a causal relationship between the consumption of fish and the immunity of colds, the assumption that it is because of the consumption of fish that people in East Meria visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds is unwarranted. We cannot rule out the possibility that it is the other substance rather than the fish that makes those people immune to colds and the consumption of fish deserves nothing but only a concurrency.

Granted that with the help of fish consumption, the East Meria people can defeat the colds, there is nowhere more ridiculous than claming that by the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil people in West Meria can immune to colds. Common sense tells us that fish oil does not equal to fish, especially consumption of fish. It is quite likely that East Meria people should appreciate the fish skin, bones, eyes, or scale, or the overall function of those above  rather than the oil, that created by human beings, in preventing colds. So before people are aware of both the positive and negative consequences of the Ichthaid, it is not wise to take it.

Finally, the arguer’s announcement that the alleged effective way could lower absenteeism is lack of consideration. We cannot deny that colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work; however we cannot ensure that without the seemingly perfect reason----- colds hardly can emerge another one, such as headache, diarrhea and the like. What we should do is not prevent people from suffering the illness but eliminate the effect it brings to us.

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands for its vague evidence about the relation between the colds and fish; the argument is not vigorous as it appears for its illogical deduction from East to West Meria; the argument is not clear as it intends to be for its unfavorable connection between colds and absenteeism. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to prove that the effectiveness of Ichthaid in curing colds, the causal relationship among fish, cold and absenteeism.

youifUID: 200073

has some merits,
It is vulneral in that several critical flaws undermine the line of the reasoning.

好羡慕你的排比啊

so many words,  是 限时 吗?

albertzlhUID: 168106

小虾米的一点见解，希望能对你有所启发，不妥之处请指正：
也希望你帮忙看看我的：
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=261061
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=261058
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=261193
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.'

In this argument, the arguer concludes that everyone of West Meria should take Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To substantiate the claim, the arguer proclaims that colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work. In addition, the arguer cites the result of a recent study that the consumption of fish can prevent from suffering from colds. While this argument has some merit, it is vulnerable i什么意思？ several critical flaws that seriously undermine the line of reasoning.

First, in the very inception of the argument多余 the arguer commits a fallacy of False Analogy ------it is not necessary to conclude that the way to East Meria people, in terms of consumption of fish, that can avoid colds will be as effective as to West Meria people.不太通顺，建议改写 We do not know that多余 what the relationship betweenof the two groups of people is; we do not know that多余 what is the difference ofbetween the environment in the two places; we do not know what is the distinction between the way they live; We do not know more.这几句感觉比较拗口，建议改改 However, all those we do not know can contribute a lot to the effect that the consumption of fish could bring to us. Therefore it is imperil to actrecommend the same treatment onto the West Meria people as onto the East Meria people.

Second, due to failure of establishing a causal relationship between the consumption of fish and the immunity ofto  colds, the assumption that it is because of the consumption of fish that people in East Meria visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds is unwarranted. We cannot rule out the possibility that it is the other substance rather than the fish that makes those people immune to colds and the consumption of fish deserves nothing but only a concurrency.

Granted that with the help of fish consumption, the East Meria people can defeat the colds, there is nowhere more ridiculous than claming that by the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil， people in West Meria can be madeimmune只能是形容词 to colds. Common sense tells us that fish oil does not equal to fish, especially consumption of fishnot to mention the consumption of fish oil and fish would have similar effect. It is quite likely that East Meria people should appreciate the fish skin, bones, eyes, or scale, or the overall function of those above rather than the oil, that created by human beings, in preventing colds. So before people are aware of both the positive and negative consequences of the Ichthaid, it is not wise to take it.

Finally, the arguer’s announcement that the alleged effective way could lower absenteeism is lack of consideration. We cannot deny that colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work; however we cannot ensure that without the seemingly perfect reason----- colds --hardly can emerge another one, such as headache, diarrhea and the like. What we should do is not 加toprevent people from suffering the illness but 加toeliminate the effect it brings to us.

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands for its vague evidence about the relation between the colds and fish; the argument is not vigorous as it appears for its illogical deduction from East to West Meria; the argument is not clear as it intends to be for its unfavorable connection between colds and absenteeism. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to prove that the effectiveness of Ichthaid in curing colds, the causal relationship among fish, cold and absenteeism.

sblbaslerUID: 175229

本来是限的结果写的没手感就不限

albertzlhUID: 168106

也希望你帮忙看看我的：
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread....threadid=261061
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread....threadid=261058
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread....threadid=261193
多谢了。

tacobellUID: 185885

有点奇怪 第一个body提出了很多我们不知道 却没有讨论到底具体有什么不同 不习惯 可能看的范文不这样吧
别见笑 我也写了一篇 求大家作死的恨砸 ps快考了 还很垃圾 着急！
To lower the absenteeism, the arguer traces back to the most frequently given reason for absences, the colds, then draws an analogy with the the nearby town, citing a recent study subsantiating the notion that consuming fish effectively reduces the occurence of colds, thereby suggesting the daily use of a nutritional supplement derives from fish oil to abase the incidence of colds and hence reduce the absenteeism. While the arguer does make his argument seemingly compelling, the case is based on some fallacious therefore fraudulent assumptions thus we have every reason to doubt the promise of the intented improvement will eventually happen.

The most fatal logical fallacy the arguer ever committed is to ratiocinate that to lower the incidence of colds, the predominant excuse for absence, will promise the likewise declince in absenteeism. Simple like common sense will tell us how the reasoning expose to attack. Chances are high that students skip their classes occasionally due to their lazyness, rather than their physical ailments or other concrete excuses. And likewise as to the case of workers. Unless the arguer can persuade us the fundamental cause of absenteeism, it is unwarranted to assert that preventing cold can substantially, if any, serve to reduce it.

Provided the assumption is tenable, the argument is still suffered from several critical logic fallacies in developing the recommendation to prevent colds.

The arguer ,in the first place, commits a fallacy of single cause-effect when it comes to the cited study buttressing the notion that consumption of fish reduce the occurence of colds in East Meria, failing to knit a strong and convincing relationship between the intake of fish and the few cases of colds took place, while other (maybe potentially more influential) factors are entirely ignored. For instance, it is highly possible that, instead of the diet, it is the heathier excersice habits that keep the residents away from colds. Also, the arguer can not rule out the possibility that people of this town visit doctor few times, not for the reason that they did not get colds, but owing to the exorbitant medical fee or the lack of the coverage of medical insurance. Odds like that are all uncertain yet on the cards and may overshadow the impact of dining fish.

Neglecting considerations of foregoing alternatives and the possible underlying differences between the East and West Meria, it is precarious to draw an analogy of the two regions and therefore couldn't be guaranteed that similar measure taken in West Meria would produce comparative desirable outcomes.

Given fish do have some key ingredients that hold some credit to bolster the immunity against cold, it is premature to reach the conclusion that nutritional supplement derives from fish oil can act the same way fish can do. Besides, the arguer furnishs limited informations about Ichthad, the proposed supplemental; How it works? What is the properties? Is there any side-effect? Will it overdose taking it everyday? All these uncertainties are not declared in the argument, consequently it will be presumptuous to conclude the unwarranted suggestion.

In summary, before any further investigations regarding the authentic reasons lying behind the absenteeism, the causal relation between the intake of fish and decrease of colds, the feasibility to prescribte the suggested nurture are given, the argument will not as convincing as it stands.