Argument165 [0710G-小猪快跑小组]第4次作业 by Shania

Shania.33UID: 2363464

==================Argument165.  525 words in 40minutes====================

In this analysis, the arguer advocates that the cans of tuna by Promofoods did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points that the chemists testified that eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing dizziness and nausea, five were not found in the tested cans. Additionally, the three remaining suspected chemicals are found in all other kinds of canned foods but not in the cans of tuna. In my point of view, the argument suffers from several flaws as follows.

To begin with, the most egregious reasoning error is the fallacy of hasty generalization that the arguer asserts five chemicals were not found in the tested cans, which means the cans of tuna by Promofoods did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. First, it is possible that besides such eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, there will be some other chemicals give rise to the similar symptom. Maybe such chemicals exist in the eight million cans of tuna last year, and have never been discovered yet. Or the cans of tuna besides the returned eight million ones have such chemical, which bring about the dizziness and nausea. Without considering such instances, the arguer can not persuade us the conclusion is convincing.

Secondly, the premise of the conclusion is unwarranted. The arguer cites the chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods. However, all canned foods contains such chemicals does not mean they arehurtless in the cans of tuna. It is possible that they are superfluous comparing with the lever of standard contain in the cans of tuna. What’s more, these three remaining suspected chemicals exist in different food may result in different effect, perhaps in tuna cans may bring out stronger symptoms. Thus, it is fallacious to reach any conclusion at all in the face of such limited evidence of the exactly data of the chemicals.

In addition, the test reported by the arguer is too vague to support any firm conclusion that the cans do not contain chemicals posing a health risk. Obviously, the arguer does not provide assurances these samples of tuna cans have representative of overall amounts of the eight million cans. Perhaps the chemists from Promofoods tested only samples of the recalled cans, which just 100 cans. It is possible that the survey is not reasoned, and can not be representative of all recalled ones. We are told nothing about the exactly and sound information about the total amounts of samples, and maybe the five chemicals which commonly blamed for causing dizziness and nausea also exist in the other cans, or in the work off cans. Therefore, the analysis of the test is unwarranted based on the limited evidence.

As it stands, the argument seems to be plausible. In fact, not only does it leaves out of key issues, but also cites by the arguer, which does not strongly support the evidence. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should judge of all possible alternatives before any final conclusions are made by the Promofoods.  

==================Argument56.  K的考古学家  雕刻====================

Syllabus：

1.         论断：K的艺术家是用实际人体做模型来雕刻的。因为考古学家最近在K发现了一些人头和手的模型。这个发现解释了为什么K的小雕塑是抽象的完全另一种风格，因为模型只能用来做真人大小的雕刻。它同时也解释了为什么很少有古K的工具被发现。论者还认为这将使得真人大小的雕像价值下降，小型雕像价值上升。

2.         论断很武断。首先，就算这些模型是用来雕刻的，但并不能得出K的所有人体大小的雕像都是用这种方法制作出来的。毕竟被发现的也只是一些头部和手部的模型，这至少不能排除其它部位不用这种方式制作；其次，缺乏根据。论者认为这个发现将使得大雕像价值下降，小雕像价值上升。但论者并没有提供任何资料证明用模型做的雕像就不值得研究，或是收藏家们对于人体模型很反感，或是他们对小雕像的兴趣有所增长。

3.         论断的前提不一定成立。前提是这些人头和手的模型是用来做雕刻的。但是论者看来只是在猜测，因为他没有提供任何有关与这些被发现在模型有关的雕像。没有资料显示有雕像是根据这些模型做出来的。

4.         论断的论据没有说服力。论者认为K的小雕像与大雕像风格迥异，而且都很抽象，正是因为他们无法用人体做模型。但是论者没有提供资料证明小雕像与大雕像的用途创作者是否一样，因为这些都会使得两者之间存在风格差异，而不一定是因为模型的问题。另一个论据是说很少有K的雕刻工具被发现出来，但这并不能说明K的工具很少，人体是K的工具。因为工具有可能是因各种原因被毁坏了，或者仅仅是考古学家还没有找到而已。

5.         结论：论者若要加强说服力，还需要提供资料解释是否有雕像是用这些模型做出来的，并还需要提供有收藏家对这一发现的看法。

shalonbasUID: 2184474

[By Shalonbas]

In this analysis, the arguer advocates that the cans of tuna by Promofoods did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points [out] that the chemists testified that [among the] eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing dizziness and nausea, five were not found in the tested cans. Additionally, the three remaining suspected chemicals are found in all other kinds of canned foods but not in the cans of tuna [这个地方是否有些理解错误了？原文意思是在tuna can中也有这三种物质的吧]. In my point of view, the argument suffers from several flaws as follows.

To begin with, the most egregious reasoning error is the fallacy of hasty generalization that the arguer asserts five chemicals were not found in the tested cans, which means the cans of tuna by Promofoods did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. [根据下文的内容，我认为该TS改成如下说法更为恰当: To begin with, the most egregious reasoning error is assertion that the cans of tuna by Promofoods did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk, based on a hasty generalization that the five chemicals were not found in the tested cans.比较一下，两句话的中心内容其实是有一定差别的。]First, it is possible that besides such eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, there will be some other chemicals give rise to the similar symptom.[除了文中8种之外，还可能有其他会导致该症状的物质] Maybe such chemicals exist in the eight million cans of tuna last year, and have never been discovered yet. Or the cans of tuna besides the returned eight million ones have such chemical, which bring about the dizziness and nausea. [这句话是想说除了回收的八百万的罐子，其他罐子里有致病物质吧。那为什么要用besides呢，besides的意义是所有罐子结果都一样的] Without considering such instances, the arguer can not persuade us the conclusion is convincing. [作为段中总结，我认为最好不要用如此抽象的句子，而应该把具体的内容点出来，呵呵。]

Secondly, the premise of the conclusion is unwarranted [同上文总结一样的问题，最好能把内容具体化，简单点出即可。]. The arguer cites [states that] the chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods. [然后呢？感觉少了一点什么？比方说文中的意思是既然其他都有，因此这三种肯定没有危险。加上这一句，再接后面的转折就漂亮了。]However, all canned foods contains such chemicals does not mean they are hurtles [是想表达该物质无害吧，hurtles貌似没这个词，我当时用的是safe，刚查了下thesaurus，其实harmless或innocuous也可以] in the cans of tuna. It is possible that they are superfluous comparing [compared 被比较] with the lever [level] of standard contain[ed] in the cans of tuna. [依然感觉少了点什么，应该点名：过量—致病] What’s more, these three remaining suspected chemicals exist[ing] in different food may result in different effect, perhaps in tuna cans may bring out stronger symptoms [and might cause stronger symptoms in tuna cans]. Thus, it is fallacious to reach any conclusion at all in the face of such limited evidence of the exactly data of the chemicals. [虽然结尾总结提到了chemical这个具体的东西，但如果只看本段第一句和最后一句，其实看不出该段究竟批驳了哪一个问题，对吧？所以，在写这些句子的时候最好不要生硬地套模板了。]

In addition, the test reported by the arguer is too vague to support any firm conclusion that the cans do not contain chemicals posing a health risk. [嗯哪，这个TS写得多好，一目了然，攻击test] Obviously, the arguer does not provide assurances these samples of tuna cans have  [这个地方用have貌似不合适]representative of overall amounts of the eight million cans. Perhaps the chemists from Promofoods tested only [few？] samples of the recalled cans, which just 100 cans. It is possible that the survey is not reasoned, and can not be representative of all recalled ones.[这句话是什么意思？survey is not reasoned] We are told nothing about the exactly [exact] and sound information about the total amounts of samples, and maybe the five chemicals which commonly blamed for causing dizziness and nausea also exist in the other cans, or in the work off cans. Therefore, the analysis of the test is unwarranted based on the limited evidence. [感觉这一段其实可以写得更漂亮一点，呵呵]

As it stands, the argument seems to be plausible. In fact, not only does it leaves [leave] out of key issues, [什么key issue呢？] but also cites by the arguer, which does not strongly support the evidence. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should judge of all possible alternatives before any final conclusions are made by the Promofoods [by the P 可以去掉].

[看得出来，现在你的ARGU已经有自己的语言特色了，比如最后结尾一定会用倒装，egregious reasoning, 以及limited evidence，呵呵。好现象，这样下去你的argu一定越写越快的，就不怕限时了。

从逻辑结构上来说，我个人觉得该文的三个攻击点找得挺好的，稍微概括一下就是：8，3，5。不过在具体的表达上还需要练习，有时我可以猜到你想表达什么意思，但文字上却有力不从心之感。而且需要注意的是要把意思尽量表达完整，千万不要留个潜台词在那里等着reader和你共鸣。比如在批驳3的那段中，你说他们可能过量，这里就应该加一句（因此可能会致病），这样读得就很顺畅了。

单列一条，正文段中的TS和小结一定要具体一点，模板是模板，只有应用到实际环境中才是好的语言，也便于reader理解你的思路。

语言上已经没有什么大问题了，以后就根据范文注意润色吧。另外，有些拼写错误还是能避免就避免，over。

PS, 中文提纲写得真详细，赞，呵呵]