Argument165 [infinity小组]第三次作业

mayaUID: 199038

Argument165
The following appeared in a business magazine.

"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods."

The Promofoods concluded that the cans which are complained by the consumers did not contain chemicals which can lead to health risk based on a testing last year.To support this conclusion the Promofoods examined some tested samples and confirmed that eight chemicals are blamed for risk to human health and five were not. The Promofoods also indicates that the three remaining suspected chemicals are found in other canned foods.A glance of this argument we would consider that the conclusion about the Promofoods' test is reliable.However, a careful examination of this argument we can find the evidence given by the Promofoods is ridiculous and unreliable.

Firstly, the Promofoods requested the cans which are accused by the consumers should be returned for testing last year.The time is a question.It is entirely possible that the cans have some problems to impact the consumer's health and it is also possible that it just the question in last year.The possibility that the Promofoods would provide better cans based on the last year's punishment.Only relying on the last year's testing fails to provide the Promofoods' conclusion

The Promofoods concluded that the cans did not contain chemicals to pose heal risk.The question is that the arguer has not provided more infomation about what the risk is.If the health risk is just some fatable problems to human beings then the Promofoods cannot easily get this conclusion.The Promofoods also cited a result of the test about the cans and consider that eight chemicals can cause health risk and five were not found in any of the tested cans.The arguer has not exactly indicated about the whole samples for the test.If the whole samples are just,for example,20 cans,then the arguer can conclud that the cans have no problems.But if it is 200,000,then the only 8 is some problems which should not consider more about human health. The arguer also cited another samples that five cans were not found in any of the cans. The same problem with the above analysis. If the whole sample is 10,then the arguer would have not more evidence to say that the cans have no problem.

Finally, the chemists inspected other kinds of canned foods and indicated that three remaining suspected chemicals are found.This evidence can only show the problems about other kinds of canned foods and cannot show any problems about the returned testing cans.This is just a wrong comparision with the two different canned foods.Furthermore,although these canned foods are composed in the testing samples, the infomation about the reaining suspected chemicals the chemists have not shown us.Maybe this remaings just some solid canned foods which cannot impact the human health.

To sum up,the evidence cited by the Promofoods have not provided a strong examining test result.If the Promofoods want to concluded that the cans have no problems they should point out the evidence that the test samples can be the represntative for the whole test.Again,the Promofoods should give specific infomation about the testing samples which can contain the cans that are tested in the whole samples.Otherwise,the Promofoods cannot get the conclusion.