argument38 METTLE小组第四次作业

amyzhaoUID: 2250810

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."


The arguer recommends that using lchthaid in daily life can reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplace. To support his conclusion, he presents some evidence and makes some assumptions. While after careful examination, we will find that this argument is vulnerable in several aspects.

First of all, the fact that people near East Meria seldom go to see the doctor for the treatment of colds is insufficient to demonstrate a low incidence of colds among those people. Perhaps people there are too poor to afford the expense of treatment. When they have a cold, they always choose to take some medicine and have a good rest instead of seeing a doctor. Unless the cold become serious enough that they can not treat it only by themselves, they would not visit the doctor. Therefore, without ruling out other factors which affect the times of visiting the doctor, the assertion that people near East Meria rarely have colds is untenable.

Secondly, even if we concede that there is a low incidence of colds near East Meria, the casual relationship between eating lots of fish and preventing colds is still doubtful. Other possibilities which can help people prevent colds are not excluded. For instance, good rest, frequently exercises, and so on, all of these can improve the immune ability. Additionally, perhaps there are some other daily foods on behalf of preventing colds instead of fish. Without a comparison in colds incidence between people who eat lots of fish and those eat little, the arguer hardly persuade us eating fish can make a direct effect on preventing colds.

Finally, the arguer unfairly assumes that daily use of lchthaid derived from fish oil is a good way to prevent colds and help to lower absenteeism. Even if eating much fish can prevent colds, it is also presumptuous to judge that eating lchthaid can do the same as well. The claim must bases on an assumption that lchthaid and fish has a same ingredient and can make a same effect. Unfortunately, little evidence has been offered to support it. In addition, that the frequent reasons of absence for school and work are colds is doubtful. Maybe some people just feel uncomfortable or a little weak but not have colds. Nevertheless, they need rational reason to justify their absence. As cold is very common diseases, they excuse it for their absences though they do not.

In sum, the recommendation that daily use of lchthaid is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism is not well supported. To convince us, the arguer should provide more detail information about the incidence of colds and give other direct evidence to demonstrate that lchthaid can prevent colds. Furthermore, the arguer also needs to offer more detail information to reveal the real reason of absenteeism to strengthen his assumption.

[ 本帖最后由 amyzhao 于 2007-6-22 17:03 编辑 ]

holacolaUID: 2313791

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."


The arguer recommends that using lchthaid in daily life can reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplace. To support his conclusion, he presents some evidence and makes some assumptions. While after careful examination, we will find that this argument is vulnerable in several aspects.

First of all, the fact that people near East Meria seldom go to see the doctor for the treatment of colds is insufficient to demonstrate a low incidence of colds among those people. Perhaps people there are too poor to afford the expense of treatment. When they have a cold, they always choose to take some medicine and have a good rest instead of seeing a doctor. Unless the cold become serious enough that they can not treat it only by themselves, they would not visit the doctor. Therefore, without ruling out other factors which affect the times of visiting the doctor, the assertion that people near East Meria rarely have colds is untenable.

Secondly, even if we concede that there is a low incidence of colds near East Meria[换一种表达方式，是不是更好，因为上一段用了和这句差不多的，而且距离这么近，有重复的感觉], the casual relationship between eating lots of fish and preventing colds is still doubtful. Other possibilities which can help people prevent colds are not excluded. For instance, good rest, frequently exercises, and so on, all of these can improve the immune ability. Additionally, perhaps there are some other daily foods on behalf of preventing colds instead of fish. Without a comparison in colds incidence between people who eat lots of fish and those eat little, the arguer hardly persuade us eating fish can make a direct effect on preventing colds. [cold incidence 是不是用得太多了，能不能找个词替换一下？个人觉得好一点]

Finally, the arguer unfairly assumes that daily use of lchthaid derived from fish oil is a good way to prevent colds and help to lower absenteeism. Even if [though 也可以，避免了完全相同的词的重复，也表达了一个意思]eating much fish can prevent colds, it is also presumptuous to judge that eating lchthaid can do the same as well. The claim must bases on an assumption that lchthaid and fish has a same ingredient and can make a same effect. Unfortunately, little evidence has been offered to support it. In addition, that the frequent reasons of absence for school and work are colds is doubtful. Maybe some people just feel uncomfortable or a little weak but not have colds[]. Nevertheless, they need rational reason to justify their absence[we must reason their absence carefully。我把这句话换了一种方法表达，主要是觉得，文中的表达方式太单一。也不知道改得合不合适。amy你自己看吧]. As cold is very common diseases, they excuse it for their absences though they do not.[though 用在这里是什么意思？没明白，请教一下]

In sum, the recommendation that daily use of lchthaid is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism is not well supported. To convince us, the arguer should provide more detail information about the incidence of colds and give other direct evidence to demonstrate that lchthaid can prevent colds. Furthermore, the arguer also needs to offer more detail information to reveal the real reason of absenteeism to strengthen his assumption.

总体感觉，已经差不多能比较好地掌握题目的要求了，但是，是不是可以多一些句式或者修饰，反正就是一些细节吧。结构把握得也不错。加油！！！