argument38 [0710G +U Aug小组]第17次作业

ddbearUID: 2275294

In this memo, citing a study report of nearby East Meria, the arguer recommend the residents of West Meria have the daily use of a kind of nutritional supplement in order to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. The further reflection tells us, however, there are several logistic problems in this recommendation which render it open to doubt.

First of all, the arguer misunderstands the relationship between high fish consumption and the low doctor visiting in East Meria as the cause-effect relation. The citing study report just mentions their residents seldom visit the doctors for colds. Yet no other evidence is provided to assure there are not other customs in East Meria, except the high fish consumption, which could help their people keep from colds. Or perhaps East Meria is located near the sea and therefore the people there enjoy the fish very much, while the wet sea-weather brings less chance for them to catch a cold. In either case, it is unreasonable make any conclusion that eating a substantial amount of fish could improve the health and prevent colds.

Secondly, the author assumes that once they lower the possibility of people to catch a cold, they could lower the absenteeism in schools and work places as well. However, there is no evidence to support this assumption. It might be true that colds are the major reason given for absences from school and work; nevertheless, some of those absent people just take colds as the most convenient excuses to take a rest or handle their private business. If this is the case, there is no use for lowering the absenteeism by preventing people from colds. Thus, the recommendation could not be supported.

Thirdly, even if all the above questions are undeniable, still there is a distance between eating fish and eating lchthaid, the nutritional supplement derived from fish oil. The argument did not supply us any scientific study results, explaining which element in the fish is in charge of the prevention from colds. Lacking such evidence we can not guarantee eating the fine fish oil will maintain the same function with fresh fish. It is equally possible that the effective components are not contained in the refined oil. Therefore, the suggestion of daily use of lchthaid is deniable.

In conclusion, because of those logical problems involved within the reasoning process, the recommendation of daily use lchthaid to prevent colds and lower absenteeism could not be well supported. To strengthen it, the author should provide more and firm evidence that abundant fish absorption will result the prevention from colds; at the same time, this innovative treatment could solve the issue of absenteeism indeed.

ddbearUID: 2275294

说实话，感觉自己这样练是没什么提高了~
我必须得开始限时了！

571633UID: 2333480

arg写的不错啊，错误找对了，模板用得也不错。

wenbb041UID: 2374108

感觉不错！

ddbearUID: 2275294

哇哈哈~~~
今天就考的这题！:loveliness: