Argument38 【Persistence 小组】第18次作业

iamstoicUID: 2294314

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."

In this memo, the author recommends that the daily use of Ichthaid which is a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil should be a good way to prevent colds and reduce absenteeism based on the assumption that absences from school and work most frequently result from colds. Another piece of evidence presented to bolster this claim is the study which reports that people rarely visit the doctor for the purpose of treating colds in nearby East Meria where fish consumption is very high. This argument is problematic for several reasons.

In the first place, the study cited shows a correlation between high fish consumption and a small amount of patients for the treatment of colds in the hospitals in East Meria, and then the author concludes that the former is the cause of the latter. However, he/she fails to rule out other possible reasons why people see the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. For instance, it is entirely possible that people in East Meria are generally more health conscious. They may have balanced diets and/or do much proper exercise, and therefore are healthier and get fewer colds. It may, in fact, be their healthy living style that keeps them out of the hospital rather than the fish itself. What is more, the author fails to consider another possibility that people with slight colds choose to have some pills at home rather than to visit the doctor, while people with severe colds go to the hospital for the treatment of the complications resulted from colds instead of colds themselves. Without ruling out all other such factors it is unfair to conclude that eating a considerable amount of fish can prevent colds.

In the second place, even if one accepts that eating a significant amount of fish can help to prevent colds, the recommendation that the daily use of Ichthaid derived from fish oil serve the same purpose is questionable. It might be the case that the component of the fish that can prevent colds does not exist in the fish oil, from which Ichthaid is derived. It is also possible that daily use of Ichthaid is harmful to health due to too much oil or fat it contains and hence people frequently eating it can readily catch colds. Accordingly, if the author could not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim, he/she could not persuade me to take the advice.

In the third place, there is no evidence to support the assumption that absenteeism in schools and workplaces is most frequently caused by colds. Perhaps it is playing computer games that is the most frequent reason why students are absent from schools. Or perhaps it is the complaint about job that customarily give rise to the absenteeism in work. In short, since the memo has not taken into consideration other possible scenarios that might serve to explain absenteeism I simply cannot take the author’s recommendation seriously.

In sum, the argument, while it seems logical at first glance, has several flaws as discussed above. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that not only the high consumption of fish but also the daily use of Ichthaid can indeed decrease the likelihood of colds. It could be further improved by ruling out alternative explanations for absenteeism in the school and workplace.