Argument038 [0710G-summer小组]第四次作业

laststrikeUID: 2318203

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: 531          TIME: 00:25:22          DATE: 7/21/2007 12:11:38 PM

In this letter, the author recommends that through daily use of Ichthaid(I), a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, to prevent colds the absenteeism could be further reduced. To support his claim, he cites the fact that in the nearby East Meria(EM), where fish consumption is very high, the times of people visit the doctor is once or twice a year. In addition, he reasons that colds are the reason most frequently given for absences form school and work. At the first glance, the recommendation seems somehow plausible. However, after a clear reflection, it suffered from several logic fallacies.

To begin with, the author falsely concludes the reason that the people in nearby EM is healthier than people in WM is the mass fish consumption merely based on the times that people in EM visit doctors for colds are less than the people WM. It is possible that the wealthier condition in EM is very clement that ensures the people there a healthier life while the weather in WM is seasonal that caused the people to sick. Or perhaps the people in EM only visit the doctors for colds when the colds in extremely serious while in WM people visit doctors when the colds are minor. Without ruling out these explanations that could undermine the cause, the author fails to convince me that more fish consumption equates with healthier.

In addition, the author overlooks the validity of the reasons that people used to give for absences form school and work. It is possible that people use colds as a common excuse for other reasons. Perhaps the students used colds for visiting dentists, or perhaps worker used colds for taking part in some reunions. Without give the realizable evidence of the colds as the real reason for absences, the author again fails to convince me that the people in WM are vulnerable to colds.

Finally, even assuming that the real reason that people EM are healthier than people in WM is the fish consumption and the people in WM are vulnerable to colds, the author falsely suggests that consume I, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, is a good way to prevent colds. All the facts given by the author, if valid, could only prove that fish consumption, not I, can prevent colds. Besides, there lacks evidence to prove that fish oil is the major ingredient in the fish that cause the health in EM. In addition, there also lacks the evidence to prove that I is the major factor in the fish oil. Without these crucial evidences, I could also believe that the meat of the fish, not fish oil, could also prevent the colds. Thus, the recommendation from the author seems soundless.

In sum, to better strengthen the argument the author should provide substantial evidence to prove that fish consumption is the major cause of the health in EM. In addition, the real cause of the absence of EM is colds. Furthermore, he/she should prove that I is the major factor of fish oil and fish oil is the major cause leads the health of people. Accordingly, the author fails to convince me his validity of the recommendation.

rainyni0812UID: 2186847

In this letter, the author recommends that through daily use of Ichthaid(I), a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, to prevent colds and then the absenteeism could be further reduced. To support his claim, he cites the fact that in the nearby East Meria(EM), where fish consumption is very high, the times of people visit the doctor is once or twice a year. In addition, he reasons that colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work. At the first glance, the recommendation seems somehow plausible. However, after a clear reflection, it suffered from several logic fallacies. (原来的你的argument也都读过，没有改，觉得你形成了一个模版，只需填充内容，建议还是多尝试几种套路，在考场上能更灵活，杜绝雷同的可能)

To begin with, the author falsely concludes the reason that the people in nearby EM is healthier than people in WM is the mass fish consumption merely based on the times that people in EM visit doctors for colds are fewer than the people WM. (这句话定语太多了，层次不清楚，尤其还是作为主题句，其实不需要提EM比WM健康的问题，因为题目中也没有这样讲，只是说区看感冒的少，这和健康还不是一个概念，或许看其他病的多呢，所以没必要说，简略句子更清晰)It is possible that the wealthier condition in EM is very clement that ensures the people there a healthier life while the weather in WM is seasonal that caused the people to sick.（什么意思这句？是weather condition吗？） Or perhaps the people in EM only visit the doctors for colds when the colds in extremely serious while in WM people visit doctors when the colds are minor. Without ruling out these explanations that could undermine the cause, the author fails to convince me that more fish consumption equates with healthier（也不准确，严密的逻辑是减少感冒）.

In addition, the author overlooks the validity of the reasons that people used to give for absences from school and work. It is possible that people use colds as a common excuse for other reasons. Perhaps the students used colds for visiting dentists, or perhaps worker used colds for taking part in some reunions. Without giving the realizable evidence of the colds as the real reason for absences, the author again fails to convince me that the people in WM are vulnerable to colds.

Finally, even assuming that the real reason that people in EM are healthier(同样不准确) than people in WM is the fish consumption and the people in WM are vulnerable to colds, the author falsely suggests that consuming I, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, is a good way to prevent colds. All the facts given by the author, if valid, could only prove that fish consumption, not I, can prevent colds. Besides, there lacks evidence to prove that fish oil is the major ingredient in the fish that cause the health in EM. In addition, there also lacks the evidence to prove that I is the major factor in the fish oil（这句话的意思不对）. Without these crucial evidences, I could also believe that the meat of the fish, not fish oil, could also prevent the colds.（这句也没理解，meat和also是什么意思？） Thus, the recommendation from the author seems soundless.

In sum, to better strengthen the argument the author should provide substantial evidence to prove that fish consumption is the major cause of the health（不准确） in EM. In addition, the real cause of the absence of EM is colds. Furthermore, he/she should prove that I is the major factor of fish oil（这句话的意思不对）and fish oil is the major cause leads the health of people. Accordingly, the author fails to convince me his validity of the recommendation.

AutobotsUID: 2364368

sorry,发现自己对argu的理解是有问题的，看过晚点改