Argument165 【0710G-小猪快跑小组】第4次作业 1.0 By Ashun

aashunUID: 2362747

A165

This argument's conclusion is that the cans of tuna from Promfoods (PF) did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk causing dizziness and nausea. To support this assertion, the arguer based on the fact that, in the recalled cans, the chemicals from PF tested samples did not find the five kinds of the eight chemicals which are most commonly blamed for the symptoms, while the remaining three chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned food. The argument, however, is unconvincing for several critical flaws as following.

In the first place, the arguer fails to tell the details about that how the remaining three chemicals contribute to the symptoms. Maybe the remaining chemicals are not harmful if they are limited in a certain amount, but once someone who eats those foods containing over the exact ratio would be dizziness and nausea. For example, a consumer would like to eat only one can of the tuna per day; however, if he or she eats three cans in the dinner at a time, the potential chemists would make him or her uncomfortable, suffering dizziness and nausea. So the PF must examine the exact amount of the three chemists whether is harmful to people carefully.

In addition, the fact also doesn't show anything about other chemicals may exist in the cans except for the most common eight chemists. It is possible that there is other unknown or unfound chemists cause the consumer's complaints. From the test of PF, we can not see any sufficient evidence showing that such chemist is unexcited. Therefore, we can not believe the conclusion completely.

Finally, the arguer also does not tell us how does the procedure of the test. Is the test conducted properly, justify or scientific enough? And how does the sample is chosen or the sample is random or representative to all cans? If not, we would not accept the unwarranted conclusion. Deep down, it is also possible that the sold out cans have the dangerous cans, but not the recalled cans. We can not ignore other alternatives for the explanation to the symptoms.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unreliable as it stands. It would be strengthened when clear evidence and specific information of the test given out, otherwise that the argument is logically unacceptable.