argument38 Ares战队第六次作业(by garyknight)

garyknightUID: 2227971

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."


    The arguer concludes that the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To substantiate the argument, the arguer cites the most familiar reason for absence is colds. Meanwhile, the arguer also illustrates this assertion by the report of East Meria where people have high fish consumption and less colds. However, this argument is not well reasoned as it stands.
    First of all, in East Meria, people's visiting the doctor for a few times per year as a consequence of colds cannot lead to the conclusion that there are less people catching colds than other places. The number of those who go to hospital obviously cannot equal to that of sick people. There exists an alternative explanation that some people do not go for the treatment of colds in hospital, instead, they take some medicine by themselves and are cured soon. Only when the cold is acute and common medicine does not work, patients will see a doctor. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that there are less people catching colds in East Meria by the hospital records.
    Second, even if every patient of colds goes to hospital for treatment, which reflects less people catch colds in East Meria, it is rash to ascribe these phenomena to local high fish consumption. The arguer fails to provide any evidence to show that some element of a fish is efficacious to cure a cold. It is possible that the arguer neglects some factors that are absent in West Meria, such as distinct climate, water, soil, etc. is the key reason to cause less colds. In short, the arguer's assumption that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds is unfortunately lack of reasonable attestation.
    Third, even if eating fish can effectively reduce colds, it cannot be foreseen that absenteeism in schools and workplaces will decrease in West Meria. Although the most frequently given for absences is catching a cold, the arguer ignores to provide exact rate of colds among all absent excuses. Maybe the number of colds is the biggest, but there are so many kinds of reasons for absence that the amount of people, absent for colds, is not very big, which will cause the consequence that even if less people catch colds by eating fish, the absenteeism will not obviously drop. Moreover, it cannot exclude the factor that there are some dishonest people who claim to catch a cold, to do other things in fact. Therefore, eating fish will not affect these people's absenteeism for that they can use other excuses. In short, the assumption that the absenteeism will decrease by eating fish is unstable.
    Summing up, the argument is not substantial because of its unpersuasive assumptions. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer should 1) provide exact data to show that there are indeed less people in East Meria catching colds; 2) justify the causal correlation between eating fish and less colds; 3) provide precise proof to substantiate the absenteeism will surely decrease.