argument38 [Victors 小组]第1次作业

baiyu_2005UID: 2255194

Argument 38

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."

In this memo, the arguer recommends that daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional tonic derived from fish oil, for preventing colds and lower absenteeism. To support this point, the arguer cites a survey which show people visit the doctor for the treatment of cold rarely with high quantity of fish consumption, and reasons that eating fish obviously can prevent colds which contribute majorly to the absenteeism. However, the argument is flawed in several critical respects which render it unconvincing as it stands.

Firstly, the argument unfairly assumes that the residents near East Meria are unlikely to get cold just because they rarely went to see the doctor. There may be other explanation for this, for example, the people here just do not pay as much attention as we on colds, so even they get colds they think it is not a big deal and do not visit the doctor for that. If so, the fact that the people whom were studied were invulnerable to colds is significantly undermined.  

Secondly, even if the residents near East Meria do rarely get cold, there is no fact to support that people’ good healthy were attributable to eating substantial fish. Lacking further evidence to support this, it is entirely possible that the residents just have special genetic advantages which made defending cold efficiently. Perhaps it is that other things in the residents’ dietary or every day live is the key factor, as maybe it is a routine in the area to take exercise daily or a habit to eat other seafood, aside from fish. Without considering and ruling out all these possible reason why the people near East Meria are less caught cold, the arguer could not convince me that it is the fish made it.

Next, even if the fish eating is core factor that made East Meria people less cold caught, it is possible that the cold is not the major reason for lower absenteeism. Maybe it is that the absentees are just not willing to attend the school or workplace, and took the cold as the subterfuge for that which also may also make the point weak.

The final problem involves the Ichthaid, which the arguer provides noting information but are derived from the fish oil. Even if the fish is benefit for preventing cold and cold is blamed majorly for the absenteeism, it is possible the fish oil do nothing to solve the problem. Because it might be other matters in fish is efficient for curing cold not the oil. Without ruling out this, the arguer also could not convince us that eating Ichthaid could tackle the problem.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To better bolster his argue, he should supply more information about the relation between eating fish as well as the fish oil and curing cold. The arguer also should provide the fact that the residents near East Meria went to see doctor as soon as they get cold. And most important the cold is the real problem that make so many people absent from school and workplace.

[ 本帖最后由 baiyu_2005 于 2007-5-25 23:19 编辑 ]