argument38 [0710G ＋U Aug小组]第17次作业

freepoohUID: 2365587

argument 38
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."

In this memo, the author recommends that daily use of Ichthaid will significantly reduce absenteeism in the schools and workplaces. To support the recommendation the author points out  daily use of Ichthaid  can prevent colds which are the chief reason for absences from school and work. Furthermore, the author also cited a study reported in nearby East Meria, where people merely visit doctors. At first glance, the argument seems very specific and convincing. A close inspection of it would reveal how flimsy it is.
In the first place, the argument assumes that the absenteeism in schools and workplaces is due to colds which are the reason most frequently given. However, the author provides not enough information to prove this  claim. It is possible that they have days off in the name of catching colds. Even if they really catch colds, perhaps it is not serious at all, or at least not insofar as to keep them away from schooling or working. They may be delayed by some other factors. Without considering and ruling out these possibilities, the author can't  reach to this conclusion.
In the second place, assuming that people in EM merely visit the doctor  due to the  high consuming of fish, the author hardly suffices to prove  that the daily use of Ichthaid would prevent colds and lower absenteeism  in West Meria Public Health Council(WM). There are several factors which render it unconvincing as it stands. Firstly, the author provides no  evidence to substantiate  people in EM merely visited the doctor for the  treatment of colds due to the high consumption of fish. It is possible that the weather there is so warm and almost unchangeable that cold is unlikely to prevail. It is also possible that the education of avoiding colds is strengthened than ever before. Or perhaps it is due to other food rather than fish. Without considering and ruling out these and other possible facets, the author could not come to the conclusion that the high consumption of fish help preventing colds. Secondly, even if colds could be defended by eating fish, the situation in EM can not  reflects that in WM. The climate in EM and WM probably quite different and the manners that people own are also varies from place to place. Therefore, the author can't equal WM with EM.
Finally, even if fish can help prevent colds, the author provides no such  evidence to substantiate that Ichthaid also could helps to keep away from  colds. Perhaps some other nutritional supplements derived from fish oil are effective while Ichthaid has only a little or even no effect on curing colds.
In sum, the author can't justify his or her recommendation that the daily use of Ichthaid would help to prevent colds. To bolster this recommendation the author must provide better evidence to convince me that it is the Ichthaid rather than some other ingredients that cures the colds. Furthermore, we need to the absenteeism is really due to colds instead of other possible illness. To better evaluate this recommendation, I also need to know that EM and WM share the same situation.　

cofeebeanUID: 2289548

In this memo, the author recommends that daily use of Ichthaid will significantly reduce absenteeism in the schools and workplaces. To support the recommendation the author points out daily use of Ichthaid  can prevent colds which are the chief reason for absences from school and work. Furthermore, the author also cited a study reported in nearby East Meria, where people merely visit doctors[这个地方指出吃鱼这个原因更好]. At first glance, the argument seems very specific and convincing. A close inspection of it would reveal how flimsy it is.
In the first place, the argument assumes that the absenteeism in schools and workplaces is due to colds which are the reason most frequently given. However, the author provides not enough information to prove this claim. It is possible that they have days off in the name of catching colds. Even if they really catch colds, perhaps it is not serious at all, or at least not insofar as to keep them away from schooling or working. They may be delayed by some other factors. Without considering and ruling out these possibilities, the author can't reach to this conclusion.
In the second place, assuming that people in EM merely visit the doctor  due to the  high consuming of fish, the author hardly suffices to prove  that the daily use of Ichthaid would prevent colds and lower absenteeism  in West Meria Public Health Council[后面三个词去掉，加上后面几个词指的就不是这个地方了，而是发出这个备忘的机构](WM). There are several factors which render it[这里最好具体化为argument，因为你后面也是用的代词] unconvincing as it stands. Firstly, the author provides no  evidence to substantiate  people in EM merely visited the doctor for the  treatment of colds due to the high consumption of fish. It is possible that the weather there is so warm and almost unchangeable that cold is unlikely to prevail. It is also possible that the education of avoiding colds is strengthened than ever before. Or perhaps it is due to other food rather than fish. Without considering and ruling out these and other possible facets, the author could not come to the conclusion that the high consumption of fish help preventing colds. Secondly, even if colds could be defended by eating fish, the situation in EM can not  reflects[去s] that in WM. The climate in EM and WM probably quite different and the manners that people own are also varies from place to place. Therefore, the author can't equal WM with EM.
Finally, even if fish can help prevent[ing] colds, the author provides no such  evidence to substantiate that Ichthaid also could helps to keep away from  colds. Perhaps some other nutritional supplements derived from fish oil are effective while Ichthaid has only a little or even no effect on curing colds.
In sum, the author can't justify his or her recommendation that the daily use of Ichthaid would help to prevent colds. To bolster this recommendation the author must provide better evidence to convince me that it is the Ichthaid rather than some other ingredients that cures the colds. Furthermore, we need to the absenteeism is really due to colds instead of other possible illness. To better evaluate this recommendation, I also need to know that EM and WM share the same situation.　
[先说优点：正文一、二论证都比较完善，覆盖了基本错误点。
不足在正文三，相形之下更显单薄，是不是没有时间展开了？有时间的话可以从药的效力和副作用等方面深入展开一下。]