argument187【0806G-Sunbird小组】第1次作业

强夫UID: 2156262

超时。。
=====================ARGUMENT187==================<br />

The following appeared as part of an article in a health magazine. <br />

"A new discovery warrants a drastic change in the diets of people living in the United States. Two scientists have recently suggested that omega -3 fatty acids (found in some fish and fish oils) play a key role in mental health. Our ancestors, who ate less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat, including omega -3 fatty acids, were much less likely to suffer from depression than we are today. Moreover, modern societies—such as those in Japan and Taiwan—that consume large quantities of fish report depression rates lower than that in the United States. Given this link between omega -3 fatty acids and depression, it is important for all people in the United States to increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression."

The argument is well-presented, but not well-reasoned. The article begins by stating the relationship between omega-3 fatty acids and mental health. By making two comparisons of our ancestors, people who ate more polyunsaturated fat and therefore less suffered depression, with modern man, people who take less fish and subsequently more frequently; and of Japanese and Taiwanese, people who consume large number of fish and result lower ratio of depression, with Americans, people who consume small number of fish and consequently higher ratio. The argument for increasing the consumption of fish in USA in order to prevent depression seems logical.

However, the arguer is failing to consider other possible alternatives about Americans depression. Such alternatives may conclude the fact that plenty of changes have happened within so long period (from ancient time to current days) or the confused extend of things in ancient period is lighter than modern people as well as less frequently. It is possible that high speed living pace and questions appeared in nowadays making modern people are having faced more troubles which we have never met before. In addition, the arguer has failed to consider the living habit and diet habit of different areas. Perhaps people in Japan and Taiwan doing everyday exercise is more conducive to keeping lower depression ratio, and besides fish they might eat more vegetables and less waste-food to keep body fit which will finally influence mental health, while the American is more likely to eat more waste-food and exercise less.

The article is one-sided argument about increasing Americans consumption of fish to prevent depression. The author may be a businessman who deals with fishing business, a nutritionist who believes more fish taken will benefit human health, or just an ordinary people in the USA. No matter who the author is, there are many aspects of this suggestion that he/she has overlooked or chosen to ignore. Large consumption of fish in USA family means heavier load. Not all the people in USA can afford such high quality protein food and also not all people in USA are suitable for eating such kind of high ratio of allergic food. Even accepted these, one cannot promise that the sorts of fish, the American chosen, have enough omega-3 acid for daily taken. Since no more details is given in the argument about the exactly effective contains of omega-3 for mental health, the arguer’s conclusion is ridiculous.

The arguer’s recommendation “increasing the consumption of fish to prevent depression in USA” is easily arguerable. Even accepted all the possibility of problems above, from the research of the two scientists suggested that mental health link with omega-3, while the depression is one kind of mental disease which cannot deduce that omega-3 will be conducive to deducting the ratio of depression. Also omega-3 acid does not exist in every kind of fish, we can not just increase the consumption of fish to get omega-3 such kind of action might cause unexpected result. Additionally, the validity and reliability of the research is reasonable for us to doubt.

Overall, the reasoning behind the increasing the consumption of fish to prevent depression in USA seems logical as presented above, the arguer is acting in their own best interest. However, before any final decision is made out, the arguer should evaluate all the possible alternatives and causes for high ratio of depression in the United States as compare to our accentors and Japanese or Taiwanese. Also the arguer should inform more evidence to prove that omega-3 acid has link with depression and American can obtain adequate omega-3 acid from the fish they can afford.

[ 本帖最后由 强夫 于 2007-11-3 14:36 编辑 ]

Bellona0428UID: 2418798

The argument is well-presented, but not well-reasoned. The article begins by stating the relationship between omega-3 fatty acids and mental health. By making two comparisons of our ancestors, people who ate more polyunsaturated fat and therefore less suffered depression, with modern man, people who take less fish and subsequently more frequently; and of Japanese and Taiwanese, people who consume large number of fish and result lower ratio of depression, with Americans, people who consume small number of fish and consequently higher ratio. The argument for increasing the consumption of fish in USA in order to prevent depression seems [to be个人比较喜欢而以] logical.[本段写的超好，官方范文的6分模版噢，研究的够透彻哈]

However, the arguer is failing to consider other possible alternatives about Americans depression. Such alternatives may conclude the fact that plenty of changes have happened within so long period (from ancient time to current days) or the confused extend of things in ancient period is lighter than modern people as well as less frequently. It is possible that high speed living pace and questions appeared in nowadays making modern people are having faced more troubles which we have never met before. [感觉对 Such alternatives的论证没有深入展开，前面说了两个alternatives，但后面只写了一个他因] In addition, the arguer has failed to consider the living habit and diet habit of different areas. Perhaps people in Japan and Taiwan doing everyday exercise is more conducive to keeping lower depression ratio, and besides fish they might eat more vegetables and less waste-food to keep body fit which will finally influence mental health, while the American is more likely to eat more waste-food and exercise less.[嘻嘻，这个关于Japan and Taiwan的理由，比起我的较牵强噢，表扬一下自己！]

The article is one-sided argument about increasing Americans consumption of fish to prevent depression. The author may be a businessman who deals with fishing business, a nutritionist who believes more fish taken will benefit human health, or just an ordinary people in the USA. No matter who the author is, there are many aspects of this suggestion that he/she has overlooked or chosen to ignore. Large consumption of fish in USA family means heavier load. Not all the people in USA can afford such high quality protein food and also not all people in USA are suitable for eating such kind of high ratio of allergic food. Even accepted these, one cannot promise that the sorts of fish, the American chosen, have enough omega-3 acid for daily taken. Since no more details is given in the argument about the exactly effective contains of omega-3 for mental health, the arguer’s conclusion is ridiculous.[本段我个人觉得不属于对题目内在联系间的逻辑推理，首先我觉得写Argument并不关注who the author is即作者的背景;其次论证的问题主要在于whether fish can prevent depression or not，and whether it plays a vital role in preventing depression而不在于whether people can afford or not]

The arguer’s recommendation “increasing the consumption of fish to prevent depression in USA” is easily arguer. Even accepted all the possibility of problems above, from the research of the two scientists suggested that mental health link with omega-3, while the depression is one kind of mental disease which cannot deduce that omega-3 will be conducive to deducting the ratio of depression. Also omega-3 acid does not exist in every kind of fish, we can not just increase the consumption of fish to get omega-3 such kind of action might cause unexpected result.[这里应该指明做a further study, 从而得知some certain fish can do it, an unexpected result个人觉得似乎没有，可能是专业限制吧] Additionally, the validity and reliability of the research is reasonable for us to doubt.

Overall, the reasoning behind the increasing the consumption of fish to prevent depression in USA seems logical as presented above, the arguer is acting in their own best interest. However, before any final decision is made out, the arguer should evaluate all the possible alternatives and causes for high ratio of depression in the United States as compare to our accentors and Japanese or Taiwanese. Also the arguer should inform more evidence to prove that omega-3 acid has link with depression and American can obtain adequate omega-3 acid from the fish they can afford.

总是感觉：写作语言应用的能力好强啊 ，第一段太牛了 therefore  subsequently  result  consequently 没用一个重复的词~~~~
可能最需要花大力气琢磨的东西就在如何破题上了，建议看看我在一楼里链接的 ：
无夏心经】之手把手教你“如何写自由AW”
解读ETS关于ARGUMENT的官方说明,为大家解毒

理解的不对的请多多包涵和指教哈~             --------------by  Bellona



[ 本帖最后由 Bellona0428 于 2007-11-3 12:39 编辑 ]

强夫UID: 2156262

有我需要解释的地方，对于第二段的alternatives我后面用了三个possibliity来解释了的呢，可能语句没有表述清楚吧，或者理解差异。还有就是我是点到了他的生活习惯和饮食习惯造成不同地区的差异，我觉得不牵强啊....

对于你说得第二段你觉得我在写背景其实是我想引出来即使research的结果都是真的，我们也不能接受美国人可以通过吃鱼降低depression的比例的结果。试想如果你买都买不起，再好也吃不上呢，我觉得这种让步接受更加有打击力度。而且直接对写作的目的提出质疑可以直接降低arguerment的可信度。但是我觉得你说further study的地方是我自己当时觉得要超时了，再写字数就飚的更远了，就没写。其实不说可能还好。

最后确实可能是专业问题，我以前学食品的，omega-3 fatty acid不是在所有鱼类中存在，而且题目中也点出了是在some中才有，所以他得出吃鱼就可以是不对的。而且把mental desease的概念偷换成depression也是一大漏洞。

如果有不同意的继续讨论哈

[ 本帖最后由 强夫 于 2007-11-3 14:29 编辑 ]

Bellona0428UID: 2418798

1.the fact that[ plenty of changes] have happened within so long period (from ancient time to current days) 后是不是应该再写完整： （这大量的变化）不仅仅包括饮食一方面的变化
2.我总以为 alternatives 后面的内容应该是写 对前面较抽象的alternatives的论述的延伸，也就是说这后面给出的 It is possible that 。。。应该是对此前的 alternatives 更鲜活的表述，用以充分展开对 alternatives 完整性的论述。
3.写everyday exercise 用于区别 日本\台湾 相对于美国人keeping lower depression ratio，我觉得较为牵强，应为我们并不了解美国人是否exercise more, 这样的论述可能会使文章辩驳力度减弱.
4.对于第二段我觉得不应该假设作者的背景，或有意暗示作者的背景，是因为这样好像是在说 ：作者并不是因为逻辑推理的漏洞及估计他因不足而导致最终建议的错误，而是因为其本身的利益关系故意诱导出错误的建议。这样感觉没有着重笔墨在推理whether fish can prevent depression or not，and whether it plays a vital role in preventing depression，及给出这方面的他因。  我对这点认识得还不透，以后再讨论。
5.对于假定fish 是有利的，而问题只是出在人们的购买力上，由相对较弱的购买力lead to 没起到降低 depression rate的作用这点, 我觉得是我没想到。 可问题是我不能确定美国人真的会存在购买不起的状况啊~？？？？
这点， 我不敢确定
5.对于omega -3 fatty acids (found in some fish and fish oils) 我也发现了，那我们是不是应该在文中建议 the author should
piont out these certain fish 啊
.
继续交流~

toumingsenlinUID: 2344846

The argument is well-presented, but not well-reasoned. The article begins by stating the relationship between omega-3 fatty acids and mental health.(牛！) By making two comparisons of our ancestors, people who ate more polyunsaturated fat and therefore less suffered depression, with modern man, people who take less fish and subsequently more frequently; and of Japanese and Taiwanese, people who consume large number of fish and result lower ratio of depression, with Americans, people who consume small number of fish and consequently higher ratio. The argument for increasing the consumption of fish in USA in order to prevent depression seems logical.

However, the arguer is failing to consider other possible alternatives about Americans depression. Such alternatives may conclude the fact that plenty of changes have happened within so long period (from ancient time to current days) or the confused extend of things in ancient period is lighter than modern people as well as less frequently. It is possible that high speed living pace and questions appeared in nowadays making modern people are having faced ( forcing modern people to face,会不会流畅些？) more troubles which we have never met before. In addition, the arguer has failed to consider the living habit and diet habit of different areas. Perhaps people in Japan and Taiwan doing everyday exercise is more conducive to keeping lower depression ratio, and besides fish they might eat more vegetables and less waste-food to keep body fit which will finally influence mental health, while the American is more likely to eat more waste-food and exercise less.

The article is one-sided argument about increasing Americans consumption of fish to prevent depression. The author may be a businessman(一般似乎不讨论作者的背景) who deals with fishing business, a nutritionist who believes more fish taken will benefit human health, or just an ordinary people in the USA. No matter who the author is, there are many aspects of this suggestion that he/she has overlooked or chosen to ignore. Large consumption of fish in USA family means heavier load. Not all the people in USA can afford such high quality protein food and also not all people in USA are suitable for eating such kind of high ratio of allergic food. Even accepted these, one cannot promise that the sorts of fish, the American chosen, have enough omega-3 acid for daily taken. Since no more details is given in the argument about the exactly effective contains of omega-3 for mental health, the arguer’s conclusion is ridiculous.

The arguer’s recommendation “increasing the consumption of fish to prevent depression in USA” is easily arguerable. Even accepted all the possibility of problems above, from the research of the two scientists suggested that mental health link with omega-3, while the depression is one kind of mental disease which cannot deduce that omega-3 will be conducive to deducting the ratio of depression. Also omega-3 acid does not exist in every kind of fish, we can not just increase the consumption of fish to get omega-3 such kind of action might cause unexpected result. Additionally, the validity and reliability of the research is reasonable for us to doubt.

Overall, the reasoning behind the increasing the consumption of fish to prevent depression in USA seems logical as presented above, the arguer is acting in their own best interest. However, before any final decision is made out, the arguer should evaluate all the possible alternatives and causes for high ratio of depression in the United States as compare to our accentors and Japanese or Taiwanese. Also the arguer should inform more evidence to prove that omega-3 acid has link with depression and American can obtain adequate omega-3 acid from the fish they can afford.
语言功底很强，连贯性很好。剖析的思路还需要再注意一下就更好了！