Argument 38末班车小组作业,希望大家帮忙看看,万分感谢

peternanaUID: 2109433

Argument38 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."
:victory:提纲:
1.East Meira的人每年去医院一到两次并不说明这些人没有感冒啊.
2. 在East Meria,大量吃鱼并不一定能够减少感冒的发生,可能这里天气好,不容易感冒等.
3.吃鱼可以降低感冒,那光吃鱼油是否能有同样的功效,值得商榷.
4. 即使吃Ichthaid能够减少感冒,但是不是就一定能够减少absenteeism呢?值得考虑.

In this argument, the arguer asserts that the daily use of Ichthaid derived from fish oil could prevent colds, and therefore that it could lower absenteeism. To support this assertion, the arguer provides the evidence that in East Meria, people who eat fish a lot visit the doctor scarcely. The argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The fact that people in East Meria visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of cold does not necessarily indicate that these people scarcely have a cold. It is entirely possible that these people, if having a cold, do not choose to see the doctor, but rather take some pills in that cold is not a serious disease. So the arguer fails to provide more information as to whether people in East Meria is indeed likely to have a cold.

In the second place, the cause-and-effect relationship of high fish consumption and lower possibility of having a cold appears uncertain. The arguer does not provide enough evidence to evince that the latter is attributable to the former. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible the weather in East Meria is so agreeable that people living there are unlikely to catch a cold. Or perhaps, people in East Meria prefer to doing exercise even if they ear fish usually. Therefore, without ruling out these and other factors which might cause the lower possibility of having a cold, we cannot accept the arguer's conclusion.

In the third place, the arguer commits a fallacy of assuming that Ichthaid is useful in preventing colds. Even though fish consumption is a good way to prevent colds, no evidence is provided to demonstrate that fish oil is also useful in preventing colds. Therefore, the arguer cannot convince us that Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil could prevent colds.

Last but not least, the arguer unfairly assumes that the daily use of Ichthaid could lower absenteeism. Even though Ichthaid is admitted to be able to prevent colds, it does not indicate that absenteeism can be lower. Because the arguer fails to provide such evidence that the colds given for absences are real or not. Maybe lots of people pretend to be cold in order to keep several days off. Thus, in this sense, even though the colds are lessened, absenteeism cannot be lower.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility as it stands. :victory:

[ 本帖最后由 peternana 于 2006-3-29 18:58 编辑 ]

salakiUID: 2200933

38The 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 asserts that the daily use of Ichthaid derived from fish oil could prevent colds, and therefore that it could lower absenteeism. To support this assertion, the arguer provides the evidence that in East Meria, people who eat fish a lot visit the doctor scarcely -for cold- The argument suffers from several critical fallacies.
开头模式很好
In the first place, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The fact that people in East Meria visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of cold does not necessarily indicate that these people scarcely have a cold. It is entirely possible that these people, if having a cold, do not choose to see the doctor, but rather take some pills in that cold is not a serious disease. So the arguer fails to provide more information as to whether people in East Meria is indeed likely to have a cold.
个人觉得攻击这点有些牵强，而且第一攻击的应该是最要的攻击点，也就是文章论据的根本。要是我就直接攻击鱼肉减少感冒的推断。
In the second place, the cause-and-effect relationship of high fish consumption and lower possibility of having a cold appears uncertain. （似乎不确定的语气，影响判断，应该更强硬一些吧）The arguer does not provide enough evidence to evince that the latter is attributable to the former. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible the weather in East Meria is so agreeable that people living there are unlikely to catch a cold. Or perhaps, people in East Meria prefer to doing exercise even if they ear fish usually. Therefore, without ruling out these and other factors which might cause the lower possibility of having a cold, we cannot accept the arguer's conclusion.

In the third place, the arguer commits a fallacy of assuming that Ichthaid is useful in preventing colds. Even though fish consumption is a good way to prevent colds, no evidence is provided to demonstrate that fish oil is also useful in preventing colds. Therefore, the arguer cannot convince us that Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil could prevent colds.

Last but not least, the arguer unfairly assumes that the daily use of Ichthaid could lower absenteeism. Even though Ichthaid is admitted to be able to prevent colds, it does not indicate that absenteeism can be lower. Because the arguer fails to provide such evidence that the colds given for absences are real or not. Maybe lots of people pretend to be cold in order to keep several days off. Thus, in this sense, even though the colds are lessened, absenteeism cannot be lower.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility as it stands.
除了少许语法错误
LZ语言功底很强，文字流畅明晰。论理透彻。
大体上没什么问题，最后结尾段字数不够应该是时间问题。
个人认为如果从一开始就使用递进语气，一气呵成，会增加文章的整体结构的紧密

vineshahxUID: 2141394

留个名，晚上回来再帮你拍！

abcd200512UID: 2165002

感觉peternana行文流畅，不过如果能调整一下逻辑顺序会更好
我的提纲是：
1. 即使感冒是一个经常性的理由，没有证明感冒对absenteeism影响最大
2. 感冒少未必是因为吃鱼（含East Meria未必是因为吃鱼而少感冒的）
3. 吃鱼和吃Ichthaid的效果未必一样
另，我的结尾也很发愁，不知些什么好

vineshahxUID: 2141394

我来拍拉，晚上校园网超慢！

In this argument, the arguer asserts that the daily use of Ichthaid derived from fish oil could prevent colds, and therefore that it could lower absenteeism. To support this assertion, the arguer provides the evidence that in East Meria, people who eat fish a lot visit the doctor scarcely. The argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The fact that people in East Meria visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of cold does not necessarily indicate that these people scarcely have a cold. It is entirely possible that these people, if having a cold, do not choose to see the doctor, but rather take some pills in that cold is not a serious disease. So the arguer fails to provide more information as to whether people in East Meria is indeed likely to have a cold.

In the second place, the cause-and-effect relationship of high fish consumption and lower possibility of having a cold appears uncertain. The arguer does not provide enough evidence to evince that the latter is attributable to the former. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible the weather in East Meria is so agreeable that people living there are unlikely to catch a cold. Or perhaps, people in East Meria prefer to doing exercise even if they ear fish usually. Therefore, without ruling out these and other factors which might cause the lower possibility of having a cold, we cannot accept the arguer's conclusion.

In the third place, the arguer commits a fallacy of assuming that Ichthaid is useful in preventing colds. Even though fish consumption is a good way to prevent colds, no evidence is provided to demonstrate that fish oil is also useful in preventing colds. Therefore, the arguer cannot convince us that Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil could prevent colds.

Last but not least还是换个说法比较好吧, the arguer unfairly assumes that the daily use of Ichthaid could lower absenteeism. Even though Ichthaid is admitted to be able to prevent colds, it does not indicate that absenteeism can be lower. Because the arguer fails to provide such evidence that the colds given for absences are real or not. Maybe lots of people pretend to be cold in order to keep several days off. Thus, in this sense, even though the colds are lessened, absenteeism cannot be lower.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility as it stands.
基本上没有大的语法错误了阿~~lz功底好，不像我，一写错误就都出来啦
除了结尾比较仓促之外~我觉得问题不大，至于逻辑顺序的问题，似乎xdf老师的观点是并不一定要先说漏洞最大的，lz的顺序大致和我的比较象，按照错误在题目中出现的顺序来写的，这样子应该来说是没有问题的~在现场时没有足够的时间和合理安排攻击顺序的时候直接按出现顺序写是更保险的吧~
:victory:

vineshahxUID: 2141394

我来拍拉，晚上校园网超慢！

In this argument, the arguer asserts that the daily use of Ichthaid derived from fish oil could prevent colds, and therefore that it could lower absenteeism. To support this assertion, the arguer provides the evidence that in East Meria, people who eat fish a lot visit the doctor scarcely. The argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The fact that people in East Meria visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of cold does not necessarily indicate that these people scarcely have a cold. It is entirely possible that these people, if having a cold, do not choose to see the doctor, but rather take some pills in that cold is not a serious disease. So the arguer fails to provide more information as to whether people in East Meria is indeed likely to have a cold.

In the second place, the cause-and-effect relationship of high fish consumption and lower possibility of having a cold appears uncertain. The arguer does not provide enough evidence to evince that the latter is attributable to the former. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible the weather in East Meria is so agreeable that people living there are unlikely to catch a cold. Or perhaps, people in East Meria prefer to doing exercise even if they ear fish usually. Therefore, without ruling out these and other factors which might cause the lower possibility of having a cold, we cannot accept the arguer's conclusion.

In the third place, the arguer commits a fallacy of assuming that Ichthaid is useful in preventing colds. Even though fish consumption is a good way to prevent colds, no evidence is provided to demonstrate that fish oil is also useful in preventing colds. Therefore, the arguer cannot convince us that Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil could prevent colds.

Last but not least还是换个说法比较好吧, the arguer unfairly assumes that the daily use of Ichthaid could lower absenteeism. Even though Ichthaid is admitted to be able to prevent colds, it does not indicate that absenteeism can be lower. Because the arguer fails to provide such evidence that the colds given for absences are real or not. Maybe lots of people pretend to be cold in order to keep several days off. Thus, in this sense, even though the colds are lessened, absenteeism cannot be lower.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility as it stands.
基本上没有大的语法错误了阿~~lz功底好，不像我，一写错误就都出来啦
除了结尾比较仓促之外~我觉得问题不大，至于逻辑顺序的问题，似乎xdf老师的观点是并不一定要先说漏洞最大的，lz的顺序大致和我的比较象，按照错误在题目中出现的顺序来写的，这样子应该来说是没有问题的~在现场时没有足够的时间和合理安排攻击顺序的时候直接按出现顺序写是更保险的吧~
:victory: