Argument38 小弟的第一篇习作，敬请拍砖！

RamUID: 2181763

这是小弟的第一篇习作，请各位批评，实在看不过去就说重写也可以，先谢谢了。

38.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."

提纲：
1.the arguer faile to provide convincing evidence that it is the high consumption of fish lead to the low

incidence of cold in East Meria.
2.one may wonder whether the nutritional supplement derived from fish oil will work even if the assumption

in East Meria is true.
3.the arguer could hardly conclude that the decrease of cold will following with the reduce of absenteeism in

our schools and workplaces.

正文：
The arguer recommend that the absenteeism could be significantly reduced by using a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil everyday, with the evidence that the incidence of clod is low in East Meria where fish consumption is very high. The conclusion seems to reasonable at the first glance, but there are several flaws by deeply considering.

First of all, the arguer fail to provide convincing evidence that it is the high consumption of fish has caused the low incidence of cold in East Meria. People visit doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of clods doesn't mean people hardly get cold, since many people can handle this kind of ill by themselves. The number of treatment people received in the hospital can hardly represent the occurrence rate of cold. Even if only few people in East Meria, as the arguer said, get cold, one can not draw a conclusion that it's the high consumption of fish prevents cold. The arguer provide no description about the local situation makes one keeps wondering that maybe some other factors-such as, the warm weather, the fluent air and other preventing action-really effect the low occurrence of cold.

In addition, one may wonder whether the nutritional supplement derived from fish oil works even if the assumption of fish consumption in East Meria is true. The arguer fails to convince us that the supplement derived from fish oil has the same function as fish. The supplement can hardly have any effect if the component which prevents cold isn't contented in the fish oil.

Last but not least, given that the supplement derived from fish oil works and people in East Meria really have a low incident of cold, the arguer can hardly conclude that the decrease of cold will accompany with the reduce of absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. The conclusion which the arguer has made is all based on an oversimple assumption that the cold mostly causes the absenteeism in the workplace and school which has not any single evidence to support it. The arguer should provide much more detail-the number of absenteeism caused by cold, the percentage of all absenteeism, for example-to substantiate such an assumption.

In sum, the recommendation is unconvincing through the analysis above. Much more evidences and details should be provided before to draw a conclusion like that. The more detailed provided, the more reasonable it is.

RamUID: 2181763

怎么没有人来呢，真的差到那种地步吗？哪怕说句该重写也是好的啊！！