argument38 限时啊限时，为什么总是限不住。23就要考试了，着急ing

xljUID: 2316543

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: 487         TIME: 0:55:00          DATE: 2007-4-2

In this argument, the arguer claims that people use Ichthaid daily can as a good way to prevent colds and low absenteeism. However, a careful examination of the argument would reveal that it is unconvinced.

In the first place, the arguer unfair assumes that people consume fish highly nearby EM just because fish can prevent cold. It entirely possible that EM is rich in fish, so the price of fish there might be very low, and his is a good reason for people to consume fish highly, but not because eating fish can prevent colds. People in EM visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds, yet this cannot prove these people do not suffer colds or eating fish can prevent colds. Maybe suffering colds is not so serious to visit the doctor. People can eat some pills or have more rest at home by themselves. So without this or other possibilities the arguer cannot convince us that people in EM hardly suffer colds because they eat fish often.

In the second place, even though the fish can prevent colds, no evidence can shows that it is because of the Ichthaid. Just as the arguer shows that it is a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, yet the arguer does not give out any evidence to prove that people who eat fish often and litter suffer cold because they eat fish oil and it contains Ichthaid that can help them prevent colds. It is very possible that something other that fish contains can prevent colds, so people eat fish might can prevent colds but eat Ichthaid may not. Before proving that what supplement in fish can prevent cold the arguer cannot draw any conclusion hastily just on the base of mere fact.

Finally, even though it is sure that Ichthaid can help people prevent colds, the arguer cannot prove that this can lower absenteeism. People may suffer some other diseases or have something to absent. Although colds are the reason most frequent given for absences from school and work, we do not know how many of them are really catch a cold. Maybe they just do not get up in the morning and do not want to be blamed, so they tell a lie that they catch a cold. Schools and companied cannot check that whether it is true or not. So even they eat Ichthaid daily, they still can say that they catch colds for an absence, although they do not actually. So there is no a necessary interrelation between having a cold and absenteeism.

To sum up, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence given cannot lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. So to solidity the argument, the arguer would have to offer more evidence and information about eat fish often can prevent colds because fish contains Ichthaid and do not catch colds can prove no absence.

rangenUID: 2306789

强行限45，保结构

xljUID: 2316543

谢谢指教，我还有个不情之请，可不可以帮我看看修改后的啊，谢谢了:handshake


In this argument, the arguer claims that it is a good way that people use Ichthaid daily to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. However a careful examination of the argument would reveal that it is unconvinced.

In the first place, the arguer unfairly assumes that people in EM visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds just because they consume fish highly. Yet the arguer does not give out any evidence that eating more fish can prevent colds. The fact that people in EM hardly visit the doctor for the treatment of colds cannot indicate that these people catch colds rarely. Maybe having some pills or having more rest at homes can cure colds, so there is no need to visit the doctor. In addition, although people in EM hardly catch colds; the arguer ignores other factors that might lead this situation. Maybe these people do exercises more often, or the climate of EM is suitable for keeping health, or something else the people eat can prevent colds. Without ruling out this or other possibilities the arguer cannot draw any conclusion hastily.

In the second place, even though eating more fish can prevent colds, there is no evidence can prove that it is because of the Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil. It is very possible that something else but not Ichthaid in fish can prevent colds, and the arguer does not negative this possibility. So people eating more fish might prevent colds, but eating Ichthaid daily might not. Before proving that what supplement in fish can prevent colds the arguer cannot convince us that using Ichthaid daily is a good way to prevent colds.

Finally, even it is really that Ichthaid can prevent colds; the arguer cannot ensure that it can lower absenteeism. Although colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, we do not know that how many of these people are really having colds, and schools and companies also cannot check whether it is true or not. People may get up late in the morning and they do not want to be blamed; they still can use other illnesses as their absent excuses. So there is no a necessary interrelationship between having a cold and absenteeism.

To sum up, the argument cannot convince us because the evidence given cannot lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. So to solidity and better assess the argument, the arguer would have to offer more evidence and information about that Ichthaid can prevent colds and rarely having colds can lower absenteeism.