Argument38【天下无G askme习作】第17次作业

askmeUID: 2264776

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: 544          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-23

Giving some facts and analysis, the argument for recommending the daily use of lchthaid seems logical. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

To begin with, aside from fish consumption, it is possible that other factors will be instead responsible for the lower treatment of colds in East Meria. Such alternatives might include the fact that the environment there is better than West Meria. For example, there are fewer factories, which might cause pollution. Alternatively, residents there give much attention to dealing with rubbish, which is the major means of transmitting disease. If so, the virus of cold is more difficult to live there and thus cause fewer colds. In addition, if residents in East Meria prefer morning exercise, which, in turn, brings about health and strength and keeps off colds. In short, without ruling out these and other possibilities, the conclusion that fish consumption reduces colds is unconvincing.

Furthermore, even if the fish consumption does contribute to reducing colds, the arguer falsely assumes that East Meria is analogous to West Meria in all aspects. However, this is not the case, nor does the arguer provide any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is highly possible that residents in East Meria lack a certain kind of element, which is important to strengthen immunity but only can be found in fish. Nonetheless, there is adequate this element in residents in West Meria. It is another element, which also relates to colds, that residents in West Meria lack. If so, enlarging fishing consumption and lchthaid has little or nothing to do with preventing colds. In all, only relying on such a simply mimicry, the conclusion is doubtable.

Moreover, assuming that fish consumption is effective for residents both in East and West Meira, the arguer simply equates fish with lchthaid. However, they, in fact, are quite different. As we know, lchthaid is made from fish by serials of processes, such as refining, boiling and so on. Yet, there is no guarantee that these processes will never alter the characteristic and effect of fish itself. It is likely that some significant elements that help residents prevent colds would be destroyed in these processes. If so, it is a waste of money that providing lchthaid is. In short, lacking such evidence, the arguer's conclusion is premature at best.

Finally, granted that lchthaid is able to prevent colds, it does not follow that absenteeism will diminish. As common sense and experience, such as the morale of residents, might also play important roles. Perhaps, residents in West Meria feel boring in schools and workplaces and thus they are trying to find excuse to absent. If so, even when lachthaid has effect in preventing colds, residents could find other excuse like stomache, headache and so on. If so, it is useless to provide lchthaid to prevent colds. Without ruling out this factor, the arguer cannot confidently draw any firm conclusion.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited here lends no strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen this argument, the arguer should provide more evidence regarding the difference between East and West Meria. To better evaluate this argument, we need more information about the cause of absenteeism.

lindorUID: 2290025

Giving some facts and analysis, the argument for recommending the daily use of lchthaid seems logical. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.To begin with, aside from fish consumption, it is possible that other factors will be instead responsible for the lower treatment of colds in East Meria. Such alternatives might include the fact that the environment there is better than West Meria. For example, there are fewer factories, which might cause pollution. Alternatively, residents there give much attention to dealing with rubbish, which is the major means of transmitting disease. If so, the virus of cold is more difficult to live there and thus cause fewer colds. In addition, if residents in East Meria prefer morning exercise, which, in turn, brings about health and strength and keeps off colds. In short, without ruling out these and other possibilities, the conclusion that fish consumption reduces colds is unconvincing.Furthermore, even if the fish consumption does contribute to reducing colds, the arguer falsely assumes that East Meria is analogous to West Meria in all aspects. However, this is not the case, nor does the arguer provide any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is highly possible that residents in East Meria lack a certain kind of element, which is important to strengthen immunity but only can be found in fish. Nonetheless, there is adequate this element in residents in West Meria. It is another element, which also relates to colds, that residents in West Meria lack. If so, enlarging fishing consumption and lchthaid has little or nothing to do with preventing colds. In all, only relying on such a simply mimicry, the conclusion is doubtable.Moreover, assuming that fish consumption is effective for residents both in East and West Meira, the arguer simply equates fish with lchthaid. However, they, in fact, are quite different. As we know, lchthaid is made from fish by serials of processes, such as refining, boiling and so on.这里改成假设比较好Yet, there is no guarantee that these processes will never alter the characteristic and effect of fish itself. It is likely that some significant elements that help residents prevent colds would be destroyed in these processes. If so, it is a waste of money that providing lchthaid is. In short, lacking such evidence, the arguer's conclusion is premature at best.Finally, granted that lchthaid is able to prevent colds, it does not follow that absenteeism will diminish. As common sense and experience, such as the morale of residents, might also play important roles. Perhaps, residents in West Meria feel boring in schools and workplaces and thus they are trying to find excuse to absent. If so, even when lachthaid has effect in preventing colds, residents could find other excuse like stomache, headache and so on. If so, it is useless to provide lchthaid to prevent colds. Without ruling out this factor, the arguer cannot confidently draw any firm conclusion.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited here lends no strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen this argument, the arguer should provide more evidence regarding the difference between East and West Meria. To better evaluate this argument, we need more information about the cause of absenteeism.

这个argu没有问题.嗯,很全面.

jacanaUID: 2292520

就提一个问题啊……
那个……
感冒通过空气、粘膜、体液传染， 垃圾问题不大