argument38 十二月高强组第四周周三作业, 请拍!

waidswUID: 2256074

题目：ARGUMENT 38 - 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."
字数：533          用时：0:30:00          日期：2006-12-13
１　不一定ＥＭ的感冒比ＷＭ少
２　就算少，也不一定是吃鱼吃的
３　就算与可降低感冒，不一定鱼油提取物也行
４　就算降低感冒，不一定能降低缺席。
The newsletter recommends that the Ichthaid(I) could prevent colds and therefore leads to lower absenteeism. The recommendation is totally unconvincing based on the evidence that the newsletter provides, and the logic and reasoning which the conclusion rooted in are irrational and unacceptable.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that the occurrence of cold in EastMeria(EA) are lower that WestMeria(WM), however, the reality may be not the same. Form the newsletter, we could only find out that people in EA visit the doctor once or twice a year because of cold in average, such fact could not support the assumption that the infection of cold in EA is low since it is very possible that many people treat colds as a small ill that do not intent to see a doctor. Or that the fees of medical treatment in EA is high that prevent people to see a doctor. Even assuming that the occurrence of cold in EA is low, there is no evidence that the colds are more in WM than that in EA. Perhaps the colds in WM are also rare . Absent any credible evidence that people in WM are more vulnerable to cold than people in EA, the whole assumption is unjustifiable.

Secondly, even if the people in EA are less likely to catch a cold, the mere fact that EA people eat more fish do not necessary mean that the low affection of cold is the reason of high ingestion of fish. There are myriads of other facts that could lead to the low occurrence of cold. For example, the citizens in WM could be more willing to take exercises which cause them to obtain a healthy body, or otherwise, stronger to defend cold. Perhaps the weather in EM is mild and suitable for living that makes its people less cold. Without any sure proof that some substance in fish could prevent cold, and ruling out the other possibilities that could lead to the less cold. I cannot concede with the recommendation.

Thirdly, even if it is the abundant ingestion of fish that cause the low cold infection, there is no proof that the nutritional supplement I could also have the same function.  Common sense informs me that there are many substances in the fish, and the fish oil naturally could not contain all of those substances. It is probably that the substances that possess the effectiveness of preventing cold is not existed in the fish oil. If so, the assumption that Ichthaid could have the same effectiveness is unsubstantiated.

At last, the newsletter has mentioned the colds are the most frequent reason given for absences in WM, however, there is no indication that such absences are actually the consequence of cold. Myriads of other reasons could cause absenteeism such as looking after children, family businesses or love affairs and meanwhile colds are the most convenient excuse. People may lie that they have caught a cold to leave their works. Without any specific indication that cold is really the main reason that causes absenteeism, even the cold occurrences in wm decline, people may find other excuses for absences, and the conclusion that the absenteeism will lower is unpersuasive.


In sum, the recommendation is flawed in several. To strengthen it, the newsletter have to include more specific and convincing information that the eating of Ichthaid actually enhance the resistance of cold and the absenteeism is the reason of cold.  

[ 本帖最后由 waidsw 于 2006-12-15 07:46 编辑 ]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

今天比较忙缓缓再改...

提几点...1, 别用简写, 看了这么多国外的文章我还没见过哪篇正式的是用首字母简写的, 而且你把I用来当简写不是很容易跟"我"混了么
2 BODY最后一段没让步也没说跟作者的建议有什么关系, 切题不太好
3 BODY第三段的他因最好举出几个来, 比如蛋白质维生素什么的

一月一号UID: 2148376

The newsletter recommends that the Ichthaid(I) could prevent colds and therefore leads to lower absenteeism. The recommendation is totally unconvincing based on the evidence that the newsletter provides, and the logic and reasoning which the conclusion rooted in are irrational and unacceptable. [建议还可以说具体协，具体究竟是逻辑不对]

To begin with, the arguer assumes that the occurrence of cold in EastMeria(EA) are lower that WestMeria(WM), however, the reality may be not the same. Form the newsletter, we could only find out that people in EA visit the doctor once or twice a year because of cold in average, such fact could not support the assumption that the infection of cold in EA is low since it is very possible that many people treat colds as a small ill that do not intent to see a doctor. Or that the fees of medical treatment in EA is high that prevent people to see a doctor. Even assuming that the occurrence of cold in EA is low, there is no evidence that the colds are more in WM than that in EA. Perhaps the colds in WM are also rare . Absent any credible evidence that people in WM are more vulnerable to cold than people in EA, the whole assumption is unjustifiable.

Secondly, even if the people in EA are less likely to catch a cold, the mere fact that EA people eat more fish do not necessary mean that the low affection of cold is the reason of high ingestion of fish.[说反了吧？怎么感冒是吃鱼的原因了？] There are myriads of other facts that could lead to the low occurrence of cold. For example, the citizens in WM could be more willing to take exercises which cause them to obtain a healthy body, or otherwise, stronger to defend cold. Perhaps the weather in EM is mild and suitable for living that makes its people less cold. Without any sure proof that some substance in fish could prevent cold, and ruling out the other possibilities that could lead to the less cold. I cannot concede with the recommendation.

Thirdly, even if it is the abundant ingestion of fish that cause the low cold infection, there is no proof that the nutritional supplement I could also have the same function.  Common sense informs me that there are many substances in the fish, and the fish oil naturally could not contain all of those substances. It is probably that the substances that possess the effectiveness of preventing cold is not existed in the fish oil. If so, the assumption that Ichthaid could have the same effectiveness is unsubstantiated.

At last, the newsletter has mentioned the colds are the most frequent reason given for absences in WM, however, there is no indication that such absences are actually the consequence of cold. Myriads of other reasons could cause absenteeism such as looking after children, family businesses or love affairs and meanwhile colds are the most convenient excuse. People may lie that they have caught a cold to leave their works. Without any specific indication that cold is really the main reason that causes absenteeism, even the cold occurrences in wm decline, people may find other excuses for absences, and the conclusion that the absenteeism will lower is unpersuasive.


In sum, the recommendation is flawed in several. To strengthen it, the newsletter have to include more specific and convincing information that the eating of Ichthaid actually enhance the resistance of cold and the absenteeism is the reason of cold.  
[我觉得总体写的很不错了，模版用的比较少]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

The newsletter recommends that the Ichthaid(I) could prevent colds and therefore leads to lower absenteeism. The recommendation is totally unconvincing(,) based on the evidence that the newsletter (it) provides, and(用and感觉这两句很脱节, 改成since) the logic and reasoning which the conclusion(what conclusion?) rooted in are irrational and unacceptable.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that the occurrence of cold in EastMeria(EA) are lower that WestMeria(WM), however, the reality may be not the same.(作者认为EA的感冒率低又怎么样呢? 这个如何来支持作者的观点? 应该把你瞄准的东西跟作者的结论之间的关系理清楚, 否则打翻了它也不能直接对作者的逻辑关联造成伤害) Form the newsletter, we could only find out that people in EA visit the doctor once or twice a year because of cold in average,(分句) such (a) fact could (can) not support the assumption that the infection of cold in EA is low since it is very possible that many people treat colds as a small ill that (therefore) do not intent to see a doctor. Or that the fees of medical treatment in EA is high that prevent people to see a doctor.(觉得你这几句可以组织得更好些, 现在的顺序是:我们只知道人们一年只去一两次医院. 这个不能支持说EA的感冒率低因为有可能很多人不去见医生. 如果改成: EA感冒率低是由人们去医院少的事实支持的. 但这个支持不能成立, 因为人们可能不去见医生, 所以他们那的感冒率可能并不低只是去见医生的少而已. 虽然意思一样但我总觉得你现在的叙述不太明确, 特别是后面那两句揉在一起却没有说明你的假设会如何推翻作者的假设)   Even assuming that the occurrence of cold in EA is low, there is no evidence that (shows/proves) the colds are more in WM than that in EA. Perhaps the colds in WM are also rare . Absent any credible evidence that people in WM are more vulnerable to cold than people in EA, the whole assumption is unjustifiable. (我感觉作者并没有直接列出这样的假设, 所以这段的直接攻击不太合适. 作者只是以一个前提, 即EM比WM的人得感冒少来进行论证, 因此应该先把这个点明确地揪出来再进行批驳, 比如在段首写上: the demonstration on the advantage of fish in preventing colds is based on a premise that people in East Meria have got less colds than those in West Meria. However, blah blah blah....)

Secondly, even if the people in EA are less likely to catch a cold, the mere fact that EA people eat more fish do not necessary mean that the low affection of cold is the reason(因果关系说反了) of high ingestion of fish. There are myriads of other facts that could lead to the low occurrence of cold. For example, the citizens in WM could be more willing to take exercises which cause them to obtain a healthy body, or otherwise(为什么是otherwise?), stronger to defend cold. (Or)Perhaps the weather in EM is mild and suitable for living that makes its people (catch) less cold. Without any sure proof that some substance in fish could prevent cold, and ruling out the other possibilities that could lead to the less cold. I cannot concede with the recommendation.

Thirdly, even if it is the abundant ingestion of fish that cause the low cold infection, there is no proof that the nutritional supplement I could also have the same function.  Common sense informs me that there are many substances in the fish, and the fish oil naturally could not contain all of those substances. It is probably (probable) that the substances that possess the effectiveness of preventing cold is not existed (does not exist) in the fish oil. If so, the assumption that Ichthaid could have the same effectiveness is unsubstantiated.

At last(这里用一个并列式的开头词感觉很怪, 因为你这一段的攻击点跟前面都不是一个逻辑层次的, 如果用Last but not least, The most important这样着重强调的词, 然后接一个让步假设会更好.), the newsletter has mentioned the colds are the most frequent reason given for absences in WM, however, there is no indication that such absences are actually the consequence of cold. Myriads of other reasons (这个词组不是第一次出现了, 换换别的吧) could cause absenteeism such as looking after children, family businesses or love affairs and meanwhile colds are the most convenient excuse. People may lie that they have caught a cold to leave their works. Without any specific indication that cold is really the main reason that causes absenteeism, even the cold occurrences in wm decline, people may find other excuses for absences, and the conclusion that the absenteeism will lower is unpersuasive.


In sum, the recommendation is flawed in several. To strengthen it, the newsletter have to include more specific and convincing information that the eating of Ichthaid actually enhance the resistance of cold and the absenteeism is the reason of cold.  

总体而言很成熟了, 就是句势有点单一, 每段的结构都差不多, 最好有点变化.

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2006-12-15 20:36 编辑 ]

waidswUID: 2256074

谢谢二位的修改, 指出了一些很严重的错误, 受益匪浅啊.