ARGUMENT38|0806-AW小组|第三次作业

guomin1437UID: 2411571

In the argument, the arguer claims that daily use of lchthaid which derives from fish oil could prevent absenteeism from schools and workplaces. To substantiate it, the arguer points out that people in nearby East Meria seldom visit doctor since their fish consumption is very high. This argument suffers from several fallacies which employ it unconvincing.

First of all, the arguer makes a hasty generalization that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds on the report investigated in nearby East Meria. The arguer ignores other several possibilities that lead to the state of seldom suffering from colds for the people in nearby East Meria. Maybe the climate in that area is very mild in winter so that the people could not be necessarily to change their clothes thoroughly all over the year, or the people in that area of seldom catching colds is the results of the inheritance of a gene from their ancestor rather that the function of eating fish. Even if the people in the area of seldom catching colds is the results of fish consumption, we can not enlarge it to all the people all over the world, since a certain substance in fish combining the a special gene of that area’s people could resist the coming of colds while other people have no such gene. In short, the arguer could not convince me by only the study report that the fish consumption in that area is high except for providing more information about the people from the environment and inherited factors.

Even if the consumption that the people of seldom catching colds is the results of fish consumption could stand up, the arguer’s assertion that a daily use lchthaid is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism is unwarranted. Since we can not certain which substance in the fish make a contribution to the lower probability of catching colds and we can not also uncertain whether the people in that area consume a kind of fish which could be found in that area, the conclusion that we should daily use lchthaid from fish oil is an unadvisable choice. Without ruling out other substance of fish in that area which could not be found in the fish oil, the arguer can not convince me that by taking lchthaid from fish oil could prevent colds obiviously.

In sum, the arguer’s assertion is not incredible for he makes an unreasoning assumption on the relation of fish consumption and catching colds seldom. To make the argument convincing, the arguer must provide more information on justifying fish consumption is the only cause of seldom catching colds and making an affirmation that the lchthaid from the fish oil contains the substance in fish that prevent colds away.(459字)

Northeast-WindUID: 2408896

In the argument, the arguer claims that daily use of lchthaid which derives from fish oil could prevent absenteeism from schools and workplaces. To substantiate it, the arguer points out that people in nearby East Meria seldom visit doctor since their fish consumption is very high. This argument suffers from several fallacies which employ it unconvincing.

First of all, the arguer makes a hasty generalization that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds on the report investigated in nearby East Meria. The arguer ignores other several possibilities that lead to the state of seldom suffering from colds for the people in nearby East Meria. Maybe the climate in that area is very mild in winter so that the people could not be necessarily to change their clothes thoroughly all over the year, or the people in that area of seldom catching colds is the results of the inheritance of a gene from their ancestor rather that the function of eating fish. Even if the people in the area of seldom catching colds is the results of fish consumption, we can not enlarge it to all the people all over the world, since a certain substance in fish combining the a special gene of that area’s people could resist the coming of colds while other people have no such gene. In short, the arguer could not convince me by only the study report that the fish consumption in that area is high except for providing more information about the people from the environment and inherited factors.

Even if the consumption that the people of seldom catching colds is the results of fish consumption could stand up, the arguer’s assertion that a daily use lchthaid is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism is unwarranted. Since we can not certain which substance in the fish make a contribution to the lower probability of catching colds and we can not also uncertain whether the people in that area consume a kind of fish which could be found in that area, the conclusion that we should daily use lchthaid from fish oil is an unadvisable choice. Without ruling out other substance of fish in that area which could not be found in the fish oil, the arguer can not convince me that by taking lchthaid from fish oil could prevent colds obiviously.

In sum, the arguer’s assertion is not incredible for he makes an unreasoning assumption on the relation of fish consumption and catching colds seldom. To make the argument convincing, the arguer must provide more information on justifying fish consumption is the only cause of seldom catching colds and making an affirmation that the lchthaid from the fish oil contains the substance in fish that prevent colds away.(459字)

文章的组织和论证没有什么可以说得，很不错。只是有一点，您似乎很钟情于“开头结尾+2段论述”的结构。因为中间只有两段论述，所以使得每一段的信息量都很大，建议你加一段或两段会使您的文章论证更明晰和更有说服力。