Argument38 [infinity小组]第十四次作业

mayaUID: 199038

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 483         TIME: 30min         DATE: 2006-7-9

Although this argument is well-presented, the recommendation that using lchthaid daily can prevent colds and therefore diminish absenteeism in West Meria's schools and workplaces is not well-reasoned. The argument cites some dubious evidence and draws some unreliable assumptions. There are some critical flaws as follows.

The arguer of the newsletter commits a false analogy between West Meria and nearby East Meria. Without providing any information about these two areas we could not draw any assumptions to the conclusion. For example, the conditions of the residents in two areas. It might be that the health condition in Eest Meria is stonger than West Meria. Or, perhaps the quality of the environment are greatly different between these two areas. It is possible that there are lots of weather changing in West Meria while the environment is comfortable in East Meria.

In addition, the arguer assumes that fish consumption could prevent colds and finally solve the problem of absenteeism. However, the cited study reported that people visited the doctor only little time per year for the treatment of colds is apparently unreasonable. Firstly, the arguer has not provided any evidence to prove whether the study about nearby East Merit is authentic. May be the residents who infected the colds would not prefer to see doctor. Secondly, the arguer has provided no information about the respondents. It is likely that most part of these respondents are young and or strong man. In this case, the study should is dubious. Thirdly, the arguer also could not indicate whether fish consumption can lead to colds. The possibility that cold are provided by some other factors. In short, the arguer cannot confidently claims that fish consumption can prevent colds.

Even if eating fish can prevent colds, the arguer could not prove that colds is the main reason of absenteeism. It is possible that the students or workers just do not want to go school or workplace therefore giving an excuse of infecting colds. It is equally possible that other factors lead them to attain colds.

Finally, the arguer provides an assumption that eating lchthaid-a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil-could prevent cold and lower absenteeism. Firstly, the arguer has not provide any evidence to show the information about this supplement. It is possible that the nutritional supplement actually provides no effect about the colds. Furthermore, the arguer cannot convince me whether lchthaid is effective to the colds, though fish oil can be efficient.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in this argument lacks credibility since the evidence quoted in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more specific information about the residents between the East Meria and West Meria. Moreover, to better evaluate the argument, we need more concrete information regarding the accuracy and reality about the study. Otherwise, the argument is logically unacceptable.

ashleyjrUID: 2206064

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 483         TIME: 30min         DATE: 2006-7-9

Although this argument is well-presented, the recommendation that using lchthaid daily can prevent colds and therefore diminish absenteeism in West Meria's schools and workplaces is not well-reasoned. The argument cites some dubious evidence and draws some unreliable assumptions. There are some critical flaws as follows.

The arguer of the newsletter commits a false analogy between West Meria and nearby East Meria. Without providing any information about these two areas we could not draw any assumptions to the conclusion. For example, the conditions of the residents in two areas.没有谓语 It might be that the health condition in Eest Meria is stonger than West Meria. Or, perhaps the qualityies of the environment are greatly different between these two areas. It is possible that there are lots of weather changingchanges in West Meria while the environment is comfortable in East Meria.

In addition, the arguer assumes that fish consumption并不是consumption可以，而是吃鱼 could prevent colds and finally solve the problem of absenteeism. However, the cited study reported that people visitedvisiting the doctor only little time per year for the treatment of colds is apparently unreasonable. Firstly, the arguer has not provided any evidence to prove whether the study about nearby East Merit is authentic. maybeMay be the residents who are如果不用be动词，则不用从句。和上面那个visit道理同，是主动被动的问题infected the colds would not prefer to see doctor. Secondly, the arguer has provided no information about the respondents. It is likely that most part of these respondents are young and or strong manmen. In this case, the study should is be dubious. Thirdly, the arguer also could not indicate whether the fish consumption can lead to coldsfish consumption 不会lead to colds!而是prevent. The possibility that cold areis caused provided by some other factors. In short, the arguer cannot confidently claims that fish consumption can prevent colds.

Even if eating fish can prevent colds, the arguer could not prove that cold去掉s is the main reason forof absenteeism. It is possible that the students or workers just do not want to go school or workplace therefore giving an excuse of infecting colds. It is equally possible that other factors lead them to attain确定？ colds.

Finally, the arguer provides an assumption that eating lchthaid-a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil-could prevent cold and lower absenteeism. Firstly, the arguer has not provide any evidence to show the information about this supplement. It is possible that the nutritional supplement actually provides no effect about the colds. Furthermore, the arguer cannot convince me whether lchthaid is effective to the colds, though fish oil can be efficient.
是说假设fish oil可以有用么？
To sum up, the conclusion reached in this argument lacks credibility since the evidence quoted in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more specific information about the residents between the East Meria and West Meria. Moreover, to better evaluate the argument, we need more concrete information regarding the accuracy and reality about the study. Otherwise, the argument is logically unacceptable.
关于cold作名词应该怎样用，不确定。大概cold和colds都可以。
错误找了好多啊，但除了第二段，说的都不够具体。
想问一下，像这种情况，如果满篇都是错误，是应该写比较常规的，有模版可用的，还是写比较非常规的，标新立异的？

mayaUID: 199038

本来自己也是有一些模板的，可是最近发现Argu没那么简单，很容易判雷同，所以现在尽量试着写新一点。不过错误好多啊，挺郁闷的，下次一定写好：）