Argument38 【CSMY作文互改小组】第三组第9次作业

meichengyuUID: 2121098

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: 469          TIME: 0:30:58          DATE: 2007-1-26

Citing several unfounded assumptions as well as some dubious evidence and presenting some simple analysis, the arguer asserts that a nutritional supplement derived from oil called Ichthaid should be recommended to use in daily life to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. However, we do not have to look very far to see the line of reasoning suffers from several critic flaws which will be discussed as follows.

To begin with, obviously, the author fails to establish a causal relationship between using the nutritional supplement Ichthaid derived from fish oil and preventing colds and lower absenteeism. Though many evidence quoted in this argument showing that eating fish could reduce getting cold, no information about Ichthaid like how much fish oil are put in it or about the relationship between fish oil and the effect. It is possible that the ratio of fish oil in Ichthaid is too low to make the same effect as fish and even the results of preventing colds is caused oly by fish not oil. Thus, without answering those questions, the conclusion from the analysis is unconvincing and baseless.

In addition, the arguer ignored many other factors that could also cause preventing colds and lower absenteeism as well. For instance, the weather in nearby East Meria is so warm that people could only wear a shirt in winter. So, it is hard to say that eating fish is the main reason of people's away form getting cold. Besides, lowering absenteeism maybe caused by the increase of salary or the newly set of punishment for absenteeism. Therefore, the author's conclusion that preventing colds and lowering absenteeism are rooted from eating fish is groundless and dubious.

Last but not least, before I come to my own conclusion, it is necessary to point out other flaws which undermine the logic of this argument. On one hand, the study reports in nearby East Meria cited in this argument is problematic because no evidence to illustrate that who conducted the reports, how many people participated in this study, how many responders and whether the reports are representative enough. Until answering those questions, using the reports to demonstrate the arguer's view point is not persuasive. On another hand, the high consumption of fish does not mean the high eating amount of fish. It is also possible that people buying fish to sale to other places.

All in all, although the argument seems plausible, it is neither sound nor persuasive. The analysis lacks credibility because the evidence cited in this argument did not lend strong support to the author's claim. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should have to provide more specific evidence concerning to the factors such the causal relationship between eating fish and preventing cold, the representative of the survey and the real function of the oil which discussed above.

[ 本帖最后由 meichengyu 于 2007-1-26 09:47 编辑 ]