【0806G-Sunbird小组】Argument提纲帖

Bellona0428UID: 2418798

【0806G-Sunbird小组】Argument提纲帖

Bellona0428UID: 2418798

TOPIC: ARGUMENT187 - The following appeared as part of an article in a health magazine. (By toumingsenlin)

"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."
WORDS: 527          TIME: 01:06:45          DATE: 2007-11-2 18:40:45

In this argument the author reaches a conslusion that all pepole in America have to increase their consumption of fish to promise taking in certian omega-3 fatty acid in order to prevent depression. The basis for the recommendation is that the diet of our ancestors includeing omega-3 fatty acids results in low depresssion rate than modern Americans. An additional reason given in support of the recommendation is that less people in Japan and Taiwan suffer from depression because of fish diet which contains omega-3 fatty acids. A careful examination of the argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

The major problem with this arguement is the unwarranted assumption that omega-3 fatty acids is the only element in solving depression for our ancestors. To establish a general causal relationship between omega-3 fatty acids and modern depression, other factors should be considered and eliminated. For example, pressure increases with the passing of time.Our ancestor did not live in a hurry which in our society often hampers the full development of our growing personality. They were not confroned with disabilities to buy an education for their children. But modern people are different. We are always worrying about job, salary and fame. In addition, living in a polluted environmens also aggravates the strain of mental effort. Whether these mental sick caused by non-existent element in ancient country can be cured by omega-3 fattcy acids still open to doubt.The author's failture to investigate or even consider these possibilities renders the conclusion based upon it hightly suspect.

Additionally, the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that makes people in Japan and Taiwan to be away from the depression. While fish may be an important factor in preventing depression, it is hardly the only one. Other elements or factors which can alleviate or cure depression should be considerated. Perhaps the climate close to the sea benefit the disease. Or perhaps the healthy life style. To my certain knowledge, there are some similarities between Japanese and people in Taiwan. Both of them never eat too much during a meal in order to keep fresh. Nutrition balance is the most important feature of their dinner. In short, without ruling out other possible explanation for comparatively low rate of depression in these two areas, author can not justifiablly conclude that omega-3 fattey acids from fish were the cause of preventing depression.

Finally, the argument omits several other concerns that should be addressed. The argument assumes that the effectiveness of fish in the specific members reflects the general adaptability of all people in the USA. Yet , the author fails to offer any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. Absent such evidence, it is just as likely that for allergic people,fish may produce side effect.  For that matter, advertising fish diet would be dangerous. Without showing that omega-3 fatty acids are safe to those people who is allergic to fish,author can not convince me to increase fish consumption all over the country.

In conslusion, the author fails to validate the conclusion that fish benefit the people's depression. To solidify the argument, the author should provide more concrete evidence to prove that our ancestor had the same mental state caused by same factors as  modern people. In addition, the author would have to rule out the abovementioned possibilities that would undermine the author's claim.

[ 本帖最后由 Bellona0428 于 2007-11-17 00:44 编辑 ]

chenweibnuUID: 2312469

Argu你竟然写500多字……

Bellona0428UID: 2418798

比较牛的开头结尾哈  ( By 谖草 )
开头：
"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."

结尾：
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 Bellona0428 于 2007-11-17 00:46 编辑 ]

Bellona0428UID: 2418798

影响房价的主要因素
影响房价的主要因素很多，诸如供求比例、经济发展、居民收入变动情况、 居民的居住水平和居住结构情况等。目前来说，很多因素是相对稳定的，而交通 基础设施建设的影响常常是最不稳定的因素。 路通桥架后，大量的居民迁离市中心，选择交通便捷的市郊，但交通基础设 施建设并不能从总体上支撑和提升房价，它只是起着一种“人口优势”转移的作 用。因此，考虑交通影响房价的因素时，应以人口流动作为考虑的重要因素，而 不只是以有无在建、待建的交通基础设施为标准。例如，在临近地铁的市郊某地 区，如该地铁线将向更偏远方向延伸，则该地区的人口可能不是增加，而是减少， 对该地区房价并不一定有利。人口的流动是影响房价的直接因素。交通基础设施 建设，是影响房价的间接因素，它通过影响人口流动来影响房价。 从整体上来看，交通设施建设，通过“人口优势”的转移，调整各区域房价 的比价。但是，有的因素同样影响“人口优势”的转移，以至于影响各区域房价 的比价。这些因素包括：各区域的地理区位优势、开发程度、发展潜力、人文景 观等等。这也对“人口优势”的转移起着重要的作用。所以，在考虑其它影响房 价因素的同时，研究人口移动情况来判断各区域未来房价，要比从交通设施建设 情况判断各区域未来的房价更为科学和准确。

摘自*baidu

lewis0409220UID: 2238498

第二次作业C组优秀习作(author: edith_sleeping )

Argument 2 "The following appeared in a letter sent by a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres to all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres.


“Seven years ago, homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. Since then, average property values have tripled in Brookville. In order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting."


time：2 hours
words：496



In the letter, the writer, a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres recommends the restrictions on how the community’ yards for raising property values in Deerhaven Acres. To support this recommendation, the committee cites the facts that average property values have tripled in Brookville after community adopted a set of restrictions on yards seven years ago. Close scrutiny of the facts, however, reveals that the fact doesn’t lend credible support to the recommendation.


Firstly, that the average property values have tripled in Brookville does not necessarily indicate that we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting, or the raising is not for the reason of restriction. Perhaps, seven years ago, the authorities in Brookville took some measures or adopt some polities which are helpful for the property values raise. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for the property values raise in Brookville seven years ago, the committee cannot convince me on the basis of them that the restriction on landscaping and housepainting lead to the raising of property values.

Secondly, even if the housepainting and landscaping lead to the raising of property values, the committee assumes further that this measure which is useful in Brookville will also be effective in Deerhaven. Perhaps, the basic industry in Brookville is tourism. The restriction on how the community’s yards improves the looking of the place and attracts more tourists here. And it is possible that the basic industry in Deerhaven is agriculture which needs little care of the looking, but more inputs in the machines and equipments. To sum up, the committee fails to convince me without providing more details about the differences between two places.

  Thirdly, even if the restriction leaded to the raising of property values, the raising seven years ago is little indication that seven years latter the restriction would be still effective. Seven years have passed. Perhaps, the community’s yards have been designed well enough to show the beauty of itself and harmony between neighbors without needs for the homeowners to restrict the yards. Or perhaps, the main and most important industry locally have been changed to others but tourism, even if it may be tourist seven years ago. Besides, the committee ignores the differences in character between the two places. Maybe people in Brookville like the consistency of the yards. To the contrary, Deerhaven residents would like the multi-appearance of the yards. If like this, the Deerhaven residents may be unwilling to follow the restriction.



  In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation, the writer who is a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven acres must provide clear evidence-perhaps by a report or survey of the comparison between the two places or a study of local economy structure and people preferences. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know that whether the restriction on landscape and colors of the yards are feasible now.

[ 本帖最后由 lewis0409220 于 2007-11-13 19:54 编辑 ]

norman518UID: 188582

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... e%3D1#pid1771155362