issue8+argument57提纲

zqznedUID: 2114587

issue 8
It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public.

There is much conversation over the issue whether or not for political leaders to withhold information from the public. Some people claim that people have the right to know in a democratic society, while others advocate that information should be kept as a secret to most people. On balance, I would argue that whether political leaders should withhold information from the public depends on what the information is and whether it is beneficial of doing so.

In a democratic country, people have the right to get the information they are concerning and is important to them.(president election;Iraq war)

However, sometimes the right of accessing information is denied by the authority or politicians, which does harm to the society and makes the situation worse.(human roght)

Besides that, it might be necessary for political leaders to withhold some key information from the public when the country is at stake or it is the nuclear information in ecnomics,polisics or navy of the country.

To conclude it is surely to see that the public should be accessible to most information concerning their interests and it could be helpful for improving the situation and man’s lives. But under some certain circumstances, making the information unknown to public is a good choice and will benefit a lot.

zqznedUID: 2114587

57.The following appeared in a newsletter on nutrition and health.
"Although the multimineral Zorba pill was designed as a simple dietary supplement, a study of first-time ulcer patients who took Zorba suggests that Zorba actually helps prevent ulcers. The study showed that only 25 percent of those ulcer patients who took Zorba under a doctor's direction developed new ulcers, compared to a 75 percent recurrence rate among ulcer patients who did not take Zorba. Clearly, then, Zorba will be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers and if health experts inform the general public of this fact, many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well."

In the argument, the arguer concludes that Zorba helps prevent ulcers and will be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers. To support the conclusion, the arguer gives out a study which showed different performance of two groups, one of which took Zorba while the other not. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

In the first place, the arguer commits a fallacy of taking the correlation between having Zorba and helpless as the cause.

In the second place, the assumption that many first-time ulcers can be prevented by taking Zorba can not be founded through what he has listed.

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between eating Zorba and preventing ulcers. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate Zorba is the direct cause of preventing ulcers. Additionally, the arguer must provide evidence of the point many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well。

夜一UID: 2130338

correlation between having Zorba and helpless as the cause.
helpless?

Sorry, but I cannot understand this sentence.

zqznedUID: 2114587

是想说吃了Z与有帮助的关系，就是preventing ulcers不过想换个词，就用了这个，自己当时觉得也有点怪