Argu165 【0710G-小猪快跑小组】第4次作业 by freckle

frecklewang1984UID: 2355474

Argument 165.The following appeared in a business magazine.
时间：2007-07-28   时间：2hrs    字数：548
"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods."

By a test on recalled canned tuna samples from the chemists of Promofoods, Promofoods concluded that the cans of tuna did not contain chemicals that leaded to a health risk. However, the test might be called into question in terms of its objectivity and representativeness, the process of testing only the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea and the result to strengthen the conclusion.

The evidence to maintain the conclusion that Promofoods did not contain chemical which posed a health risk was the test from the chemists of Promofoods, we could not, however, be persuaded these chemists from Promofoods were categorically impartial. It is common sense that a large majority of persons will satisfy their own or clique's interests preferentially out of profits, promotion, reputation, even at the cost of others, also including quite a few intellects. It might be presumptuous to view that the test was sure to be misleading, the test, at least was carried out with other chemists from different areas. In addition, if the chemists could stand on the objective point, the representativeness of tested samples of the recalled cans should also be justified. Whether both of the two facets were a reflection of efficacy must be evaluated to continue the argument blow.

Even if the test from the chemists of Promofoods on the samples of the recalled cans could actually show its objectivity and efficacy admittedly, the process of only testing the eight chemicals most commoly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea also was unconvincing. The "most commonly" just shows “probability”, which never appears in fact. For example, that the probability of 99% of catching a cold is not equal to catching a cold. Therefore, it was high likely that not the "most commonly", rather than more commonly, even rarely commonly chemicals were to blame for the dizziness and nausea. Or perhaps unknown chemicals or bacteria should be blamed for the symptoms. Therefore, Out of an accurate, responsible, and attentive consideration, the test should detect and analyze all chemicals which likely caused the dizziness and nausea, even though just little probability. Moreover, the evidence that three of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for the dizziness and nausea are naturally found in all  other kinds of canned foods is so ambiguous as to be still skeptical. Many possible factors would substantiate the opposite. First, the quantity of the three remaining suspected chemicals canned tuna contained is much larger than all other kinds of canned foods, and just the three suspected chemicals contained excessively lead to the unhealthy symptoms. Second, perhaps, it is the interaction of the three suspected chemicals and canned tuna that cause symptoms of dizziness and nausea. Unfortunately, the argument fails to rule out possible factors, and so unwarranted.

In sum, the argument must provide more evidences to erase our worry about the objectivity and efficacy from the test chemists in Promofoods made on the canned tuna samples to strengthen the conclusion that the cans of tuna from Promofoods did not contain chemicals that leaded to a health risk. In addition, the test must contain all possible factors, rather than only the eight most commonly blamed, to do a accurate and conclusive judgment and exclude other possibilities which may lead to the symptoms.


提纲
56.Collectors prize the ancient life-size clay statues of human figures made on Kali Island but have long wondered how the Kalinese artists were able to depict bodies with such realistic precision. Since archeologists have recently discovered molds of human heads and hands on Kali, we can now conclude that the ancient Kalinese artists used molds of actual bodies, not sculpting tools and techniques, to create these statues. This discovery explains why Kalinese miniature statues were abstract and entirely different in style: molds could only be used for life-size sculptures. It also explains why few ancient Kalinese sculpting tools have been found. In light of this development, collectors should expect the life-size sculptures to decrease in value and the miniatures to increase in value.
1：discovery of molds of human heads and hands on Kali can not show that conclusion that ancient Kalinese artists used molds of actual bodies, perhaps other usage of human heads and hands, such as for anatomy of human heads and hands, or research on behavior of human, or evolving development of human heads and hands
2:can not rule out of the possibility of use sculpting tools and technique, insufficient evidence, thus can not explain why the miniature statues were abstract and different
3:few sculpting tools found maybe results from other reasons, perhaps limited technology and careless exploration
4 the life-size sculpture to decrease in value and the miniatures to increase in value is unwarranted, the standard of evaluating the sculpture is not just based on the result which seemingly can be explained.

[ 本帖最后由 frecklewang1984 于 2007-7-29 11:33 编辑 ]