【Climate作文小组】第二次作业Issue180,Argument142,Argument158

cowgodUID: 2371697

180.“Many problems of modem society cannot be solved by laws and legal system because moral behavior cannot be legislated.”

Laws that have long history as well as the legal system are formed to regulate mankind behavior in exchange for stable society. Although laws and the legal system have been modified and complemented enormously, various society problems such as widespread terrorism and organized crime continuously emerge. It is true that these measures have restricted crimes, however, it is insufficient to make crimes vanished. Admittedly, moral behavior cannot be legislated but can be educated.

Morality plays great important in human behavior other than laws and the legal system. Morality serves as instruction in people’s mind for it helps people to judge whether their actions are right or wrong when they confront with dilemmas whereas laws and legal system are usually enforced through a set of institutions. Morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. Laws and legal system is based on morality otherwise people would not be sincerely convinced to conform to them.

Laws and legal system have negative effects. It is reported that a lot of convicts commit crimes again after they were set free. A person who has committed crime can hardly be accepted by other people after they were released. It is common that other people rarely trust criminals and they feel isolated. Therefore, it is hard for them to remedy what they have done. With the pressure, they are inclined to commit crimes again. From this view, laws and legal system fail to restrict people’s criminal behavior. However, if they have formed good morality, they are not likely to commit crimes.

It is unlikely that laws and legal system cover every aspect and sometimes they fail to work effectively. As is known to us, laws and legal system rely on morality. The scope of laws and legal system is litter than that of morality. It is entirely possible that we should employ our morality to work while laws and legal system are invalid. Moreover, legal system may have flaws that it does not work sufficiently when officials are corrupt. Consequently, our government not only emphasizes the important of laws but also the significance of morality.

People can build up a good morality if they were raised in environment with morality and received education. It is confirmed that moral development is sequential, moving from external to internal control. Therefore, in the early level of development, children strive to maximize pleasure and avoid punishment. It is our duty to help children to build up fine morality.

To sum up, though laws and legal system intends to restrict crimes, various modern problems do not diminish. Morality is internal action which is in the long run while laws and legal system functions exterior. Therefore, although moral behavior cannot be legislated, we can pay more attention to education and environment that may help people to form good morality.

cowgodUID: 2371697

TOPIC: ARGUMENT142 - The article entitled 'Eating Iron' in last month's issue of Eating for Health reported that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Further, it is well established that there is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is high in iron. On the basis of the study and the well-established link between red meat and heart disease, we can conclude that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.
WORDS: 388          TIME: 00:30:0          DATE: 2007-11-18 18:52:51

In this argument, arguer contends that correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease. This prospection is rest on the study of eating iron and the well-established link between red meat and heart disease. This argument seems to be rational, however, close scrutiny will reveal it commit several flaws.

Firstly, there is no information about what “eating iron” study uses to support its idea. It is possible that red meat was employed in this study to examine whether there is correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Therefore, the function between two correlation is not persuasive.

Secondly, arguer fails to prove that iron in red meat can be assimilated by human and rule out weather other food have something to do with heart disease. Although red meat is high in iron and heart patients have consumed a great deal of red meat, it is doubtful that whether iron in meat can be well absorbed by human. It is entirely possible that iron in red meat may be in form with other chemical element so steady that cannot be absorbed. If this is a case, it is unconvincing that excessive consumption of red meat will lead to heart disease. Arguer ignores that there may be many other foods that are high in iron and its iron can be easily assimilated by human. Consequently these foods with abundant iron may play great important role in heart disease.

Finally, even the iron applied by the study comes from red meat, it is still a suspicion that we red meat has relation with heart disease. It is entirely possible that a person with a heat disorder not only in favor of red meat but has bad habits which will cause heart trouble. Without eliminating other factors contributing to heart disease, it is impossible to draw conclusion that correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease

To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the arguer should present the source of his research’s iron and whether iron in red meat can be easily absorbed. Various factors affecting result must be excluded.

cowgodUID: 2371697

TOPIC: ARGUMENT158 - The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites. A total of five sites and 300 people were examined. The study revealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. Furthermore, although it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Therefore, the council is pleased to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. We see no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.
WORDS: 370          TIME: 00:13:43          DATE: 2007-11-16 16:35:02

It is contended in this argument that current system of garbage sites does not threaten people's health. Moreover, restrictions both on the size of such sites in arguer's state and the number of homes built near the sites are exccesive. to support his assertion, he cites that the correlation between garbage sutes and disease is low. Moreover, he reasons that the influence of size of garbage sites on people's health can be ignored. This argument seems to be well organised, however, close scrutiny will reveal flaws in several respects.

To begin with, the arguer fails to present the reason why he chosen unexplained rashes as one study object. It is entirely possible that unexplained rashes have little to do with garbage. If this is a case, it is unpersuasive that they computed correlation between the distance from homes to garbage and incidence of rashes to illustrate the problem. Consequently, the arguer should examine whether rashes can effectively reflect the possibility of harmful influence.

Then, it is too harsh to draw conclusion that the size of garbage sites is not related to people's health. As we are informed that people living near the largest trash sites are more likely to suffer from rashes, it can not be ruled out that the size of garbage has nothing to do with the health of people unless the incidence of rashes with larger and smaller have no difference.

Finally, it is groundless for the council to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a notably health hazard. Despite the correlation is small, it can not be eliminated that garbage sites harmfully affect health of people. Moreover, the arguer ignored some disease latently influence people's health taking radiation for example. Unnoticeable as such disease is, they may undermine your organisms and inherit to your children who would be born with some defects.

To sum up, this argument is unconvincing as it stands. First of all, arguer must evaluate whether the unexplained rashes can sufficiently illustrate the relation between garbage sites and people's health. Moreover, arguer must examine other diseases that undermine people's health. To solidify his prospect, the study must be put insight into whether the big sites have higher incidence.