Argument38 考前最后一次同主题

chongxinlaiUID: 2235209

题目：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."

字数：454         用时：0:30:00          日期：2007-3-30

In this argument, the arguer concludes that using lchthaid is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. Such recommend is completely unwarranted for it simply based on several steps of logical confusing inferences. In the following details, I will discuss these flaws one by one.

First, the mere fact that people lived in East Meria visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds does not mean that  eating a amount of fish can prevent colds. The arguer fails to consider the real situation of people. It is possible that most of people always suffer from cold and they can not to go to hospital because of its high price. If so, the arguer's conclusion that  eating fish prevent colds is open to doubt. Moreover, even if those people are indeed healthy, it is unreasonable to draw a conclusion that their health are contributed to eating amount of fish. Do all of them always eat fish? The arguer does not mention. It is highly possible that most of people dislike to eat fish. They may take exercise everyday. In such case, their health have nothing to do with eating fish but with daily exercise. Under such circumstance, the arguer's assertion that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds is unreliable.

In addition, even though I concede that eating fish help people prevent colds, it is unreasonable to conclude that fish oil is the crucial factor to prevent colds. The arguer fails to take into account other factors which may effect people's health. For example,  it is entirely possible that certain ingredients contained in fish help kill most of bacteria which result in variety of cold. If so, the influence of preventing cold is the result of such materials not fish oil. Any of these scenarios , if true, will undermine the rationality of the argument.

Finally, given that the foregoing assumptions are substantiated, the arguer's assumption that preventing colds will lower absenteeism is open to question. No evidence is offer to lend strong support that people were absent in their schools and workplaces is due to having a cold. The arguer fails to consider other possibilities to their absenteeism. Perhaps, most of people just do not want to go to school and workplace since they prefer to watch televison or play game at home. Then, they took a lie that they have to be absent for their having a cold.
In such case, even if lchthaid is useful, absenteeism would not be lower.  Under such circumstance, the arguer's claim eating Ichthaid help reduce absenteeism is fails to convince me.

To sum up, lacking enough evidence and reasonable analysis, the arguer's suggestion fails to persuade me.

[ 本帖最后由 chongxinlai 于 2007-3-30 09:28 编辑 ]

ILOVEISSUEUID: 2300195

看了看，既然iq要改，我就不细改，提几个建议

第一个body第二个层次逻辑比较乱：不如就写他因，别写他们不喜欢吃鱼
第二个body怎么和第一个body后一个层次这么像?
前两个body有点逻辑混乱

逻辑错误漏了几个
不如这样写
1。看医生少不一定感冒少

2。即使感冒少不一定是吃鱼
1）首先他们吃不吃鱼？consumption不一定是吃鱼，可能是其他用处可能是喂猫
2）即使吃鱼，也不定是由于吃鱼造成感冒少，列举他因

3。结论不确定
1）起作用成分是不是鱼油？
2）即使是鱼油，提炼物Ich有没有用？
3)即使有用能防感冒，有可能感冒缺席只是一种借口，absteesm也不一定

[ 本帖最后由 ILOVEISSUE 于 2007-3-30 09:52 编辑 ]

chongxinlaiUID: 2235209

原帖由 ILOVEISSUE 于 2007-3-30 09:49 发表
看了看，既然iq要改，我就不细改，提几个建议

第一个body第二个层次逻辑比较乱：不如就写他因，别写他们不喜欢吃鱼
第二个body怎么和第一个body后一个层次这么像?
前两个body有点逻辑混乱

逻辑错误漏了 ...

:funk:
我知道这次写的很滥........

ILOVEISSUEUID: 2300195

还好啦，不是很滥

iq28UID: 2152875

In this argument, the arguer concludes that using lchthaid is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. Such recommend is completely unwarranted for it simply based on several steps of logical confusing inferences. In the following details, I will discuss these flaws one by one.

First, the mere fact that people lived in East Meria visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds does not mean that  eating a(n) amount of fish can prevent colds. The arguer fails to consider the real situation of people. (缥缈了.这句话说了都不知道你要论证哪些方面的东西) It is possible that most of people always suffer from cold (这一句不好.臆断很多人感冒来支持自己观念总觉得读起来不爽,用most people who suffer from colds can not go to...感觉就可以了) and they can not to go to hospital because of its high price. If so, the arguer's conclusion that  eating fish prevent colds is open to doubt. (第一层攻击的是论断的基础,就是感冒是不是真的减少了.相对于第二层这个是一个小错误,两个层次之间的关系应该拉得更开一点) Moreover, even if those people are indeed healthy, (直接说感冒少) it is unreasonable to draw a conclusion that their health are contributed to eating amount of fish. Do all of them always eat fish? The arguer does not mention. It is highly possible that most of people dislike to eat fish. (没有攻击到点上.关键是要攻击感冒少的人是不是吃鱼少的人) They may take exercise everyday. In such case, their health have (has) nothing to do with eating fish but with daily exercise. Under such circumstance, the arguer's assertion that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds is unreliable. (两个层次拉的不是特别开,只有一个even if在起作用.反例少而不细)

In addition, even though I concede that eating fish help(s) people prevent colds, it is unreasonable to conclude that fish oil (要攻击的是lchthaid,不是fish oil.) is the crucial factor to prevent colds. The arguer fails to take into account other factors which may effect people's health. For example, it is entirely possible that certain ingredients contained in fish help kill most of bacteria which result in variety of cold. If so, the influence of preventing cold is the result of such materials not fish oil. Any of these scenarios, (只写了一种可能性怎么还说these) if true, will undermine the rationality of the argument.

Finally, given that the foregoing assumptions are substantiated, the arguer's assumption that preventing colds will lower absenteeism is open to question. No evidence is offer(ed) to lend strong support that people were absent in their schools and workplaces is due to having a cold. The arguer fails to consider other possibilities to their absenteeism. Perhaps, most of people just do not want to go to school and workplace since they prefer to watch televison or play game at home. Then, they took a lie that they have to be absent for their having a cold. (如果你要举例other possibilities,基本就是默认感冒是真实的感冒原因了,所以后面的举例就不应该是感冒只是一种借口,而应该说别的比如堵车,和感冒平行的原因.更推荐前面写) In such case, even if lchthaid is useful, absenteeism would not be lower.  Under such circumstance, the arguer's claim eating Ichthaid help reduce absenteeism is fails to convince me.

To sum up, lacking enough evidence and reasonable analysis, the arguer's suggestion fails to persuade me.

4分吧
没有出彩的地方 不过整体框架也问题不大

ILOVEISSUEUID: 2300195

晕，没有看到第二个body的ts中oil这个单词。。。
当我什么都没说好了

annlyseaUID: 2219320

不好意思啊~没给你改
学校的网络坏了三天，郁闷~~！
结果今天上来，LZ竟然已经考完了