argument80 考前最后几篇啦，感慨一下

ghost33UID??2267869

TOPIC: ARGUMENT80 - The following appeared as an editorial in a health magazine.

"Clormium 5 is an odorless, tasteless, and generally harmless industrial by-product that can enter the water supply. A preliminary study has linked cooking with water containing clormium 5 to an increased incidence of allergies and skin rashes. Tests of the drinking water in several areas have revealed the presence of clormium 5. Although it is possible to remove clormium 5 from water, the costs of routine testing and purification are higher than many communities can afford. Therefore, in order to prevent allergies and skin rashes, communities that cannot afford to rid their drinking water of clormium 5 should replace drinking fountains in public buildings, such as schools and libraries, with bottled-water coolers."

WORDS: 479          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-21

The arguer in this article states that drinking water in several areas has clormium 5(c5), one industrial by-product without any odor or taste, though  previously believed no harm to human beings, one current study showing that there is a high correlation with c5 and allergies and skin rashes. Then the arguer suggests that communities cannot affording to test and purify water should replace drinking fountains with bottled-water coolers. Though reasonable at first glance, this argument is undermined by several fallacies which will be discussed as follows:

To begin with, the arguer fails to demonstrate that c5 will cause allergies and skin rashes, since the preliminary study is not enough. There is no information about the study itself which makes it impossible to evaluate the credibility of the study. If the study itself is with several problems, the basis of this argument is dubious. Given people who took part in the study had other ways-touching some flowers, or animal furs,- to increase the opportunity to harm their skins, the result about some correlation with c5 and those skin problems may not tell the truth. Therefore, more information is needed to build a correlation with c5 and those skin problems.

Even c5 does cause those skin problems, the arguer fails to show that drinking water in all areas have c5. On one hand, the tests cited by the arguer are open to doubt. How were these tests conducted? The methods were correct? The equipments were clean and precise enough? Given that the equipments were not well cleaned, which were used to contain c5 before the test, or that those people who conducted the tests didn't follow scientific ways, the tests have no value. Even the test itself is correct and the result is dependable, no evidence shows that the amount of c5 in drinking water has exceeded the standard, therefore may do harm to people. Also, the arguer does not clarify that all areas' drinking water has been polluted. All these fallacies render the argument unconvincing.

Even all areas' drinking water has excessive amount of c5, it is precocious to advise those communities which cannot afford the costs of routine testing and purification to replace drinking fountains in public buildings, such as schools and libraries, with bottles-water coolers. For one thing, the arguer does not demonstrate that these bottled-water coolers are without c5. For another, the arguer fails to compare the fees of routine testing and purifying to that of bottled-water coolers. Given that it will cost more to build bottled-water coolers, this advice would better to remain dubious.

In sum, this argument is not well substantiated. To support the argument, the arguer should provide sufficient evidence to show that c5 will cause those skin problems, as well as the minimal allowed amount. TO reach a better solution, the arguer should provide more information about the cost of the two ways.

菲子UID??2311527

TOPIC: ARGUMENT80 - The following appeared as an editorial in a health magazine.

"Clormium 5 is an odorless, tasteless, and generally harmless industrial by-product that can enter the water supply. A preliminary study has linked cooking with water containing clormium 5 to an increased incidence of allergies and skin rashes. Tests of the drinking water in several areas have revealed the presence of clormium 5. Although it is possible to remove clormium 5 from water, the costs of routine testing and purification are higher than many communities can afford. Therefore, in order to prevent allergies and skin rashes, communities that cannot afford to rid their drinking water of clormium 5 should replace drinking fountains in public buildings, such as schools and libraries, with bottled-water coolers."

WORDS: 479          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-21

The arguer in this article states that drinking water in several areas has clormium 5(c5), one industrial by-product without any odor or taste, though  previously believed no harm to human beings, one current study showing that there is a high correlation with c5 and allergies and skin rashes. Then the arguer suggests that communities cannot affording to test and purify water should replace drinking fountains with bottled-water coolers. Though reasonable at first glance, this argument is undermined by several fallacies which will be discussed as follows:

To begin with, the arguer fails to demonstrate that c5 will cause allergies and skin rashes, since the preliminary study is not enough. There is no information about the study itself which makes it impossible to evaluate the credibility of the study. If the study itself is with several problems, the basis of this argument is dubious.（你觉不觉得这两句话的意思很接近啊？） Given people who took part in the study had other ways-touching some flowers, or animal furs,- to increase the opportunity to harm their skins, the result about some correlation with c5 and those skin problems may not tell the truth. Therefore, more information is needed to build a correlation with c5 and those skin problems.

Even c5 does cause those skin problems, the arguer fails to show that drinking water in all areas have c5. On one hand, the tests cited by the arguer are open to doubt. How were these tests conducted? The methods were correct? The equipments were clean and precise enough? Given that the equipments were not well cleaned, which were used to contain c5 before the test, or that those people who conducted the tests didn't follow scientific ways, the tests have no value. Even the test itself is correct and the result is dependable, no evidence shows that the amount of c5 in drinking water has exceeded the standard, therefore may do harm to people. Also, the arguer does not clarify that all areas' drinking water has been polluted. All these fallacies render the argument unconvincing.

Even all areas' drinking water has excessive amount of c5, it is precocious to advise those communities which cannot afford the costs of routine testing and purification to replace drinking fountains in public buildings, such as schools and libraries, with bottles-water coolers. For one thing, the arguer does not demonstrate that these bottled-water coolers are without c5. For another, the arguer fails to compare the fees of routine testing and purifying to that of bottled-water coolers. Given that it will cost more to build bottled-water coolers, this advice would better to remain dubious.

In sum, this argument is not well substantiated. To support the argument, the arguer should provide sufficient evidence to show that c5 will cause those skin problems, as well as the minimal allowed amount. TO reach a better solution, the arguer should provide more information about the cost of the two ways.

我觉得你的argument已经没什么问题了。。。Issue 要加油哦。