argument38 请大家指教 谢谢

ssskyUID: 204142

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.'

1．        The credibility of the study
2．        The causal relationship between (1)fish consumption and frequence of visiting doctor  (2)a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil and absences from school
3．        False analogy different West Metria and East Meria

In this argument, concerning the topic of an innovative treatment, the arguer provides some evidences and concludes that a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil could be used as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. Through analyzing the argument carefully, I consider it si logically unconvincing in several respects, such as unsubstantiated evidences, problematic survey and hasty conclusion, as discussed below.

For onr thing, the validity of the study is suspicious. First, the identities of the participants and conductors of the study as well as their relationship with the Ichthaid producer are all unknown to us. It is doubtful that whether the study is only a means of advertise. Second, the arguer fails to provide complete information concerning the participants, such as age, gender, occupation and so on, and the quantity of them, thus the scientific value of this study is open to doubt. In short, the procedure and the result of the study lacks credibility and therefore could not lend strong support to the arguer's claim.

For another, there are two falses of causal relationship in this arugument.  First, whether high fish consumption leads to low frequence of visiting doctor is suspicious.  The arguer should provide concrete evidences to demonstrate the component of the fish that residents in East Meria consumes is helpful for improving health, and reducing the possibilities of suffering cold. Second, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil called lchthaid and decreasing absenteeism. As known to us, there are thousands of possibilities cause absenteeism, for example kinds of illness escept cold, having no interest on learning or job and some occasional incidents. Consequently, granted that Ichthaid is effective for the treatment of cold,  it is unwarranted to attribute absenteeism to cold, and then to assert that Ichthaid is a good way to lower absenteeism.

In addition, the comparison between East Meria and West Meria is a false analogy. Even there is a same word 'meria' in the names of these two cities, the arguer fails to indicate the comparison between them. First, custom may be different in these two cities. Even if fish is helpful for people's health, people in West Meria may not eat fish due to their special religionary faith or custom. Second, maybe in East Meria the fishery is developed because of abundant water resource which West Meria does not have. Without showing that all other conditions in the two areas have been essentially the asme, the arguer can not summarize that the experience of East Meria suits West Meria.

In sum, lacking substantial evidences that fish could cure cold and decrease absenteeism, the arguer could not persuade us the memo is credible.