Argument165 飞越dreams小组第4次作业

Marvelous_czUID: 2451875

165.The following appeared in a business magazine.

"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods."

去年由于有大量消费者投诉说产生了眩晕和恶心，Promofoods要求800万罐金枪鱼回收检测。Promofoods下结论说这些罐头根本不含任何有健康危害的化学物质。这一结论基于这样的事实，即Promofoods的化学家测试了回收的罐头样本，并发现8种最常见的导致眩晕和恶心症状的化学物质中，有五种都没有在任何被测试的罐头中被发现。化学家确实发现剩下三种受怀疑的化学物质在所有其他罐头食品中都存在。

This magazine article concludes that Promofoods requested to return eight million cans of tuna for testing and the reason is that Promofoods numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea. And Promofoods concludes that the cans did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk, which is based on the fact that five of eight chemicals were not found in any of the test cans and three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods. However, this magazine article is undermined by some problems.

To begin with, the article points out that Promofoods returned eight million cans of tuna for testing, and the author does not give any details about that. It is entirely possible that there are billions of cans of tuna in the country, and eight million is only the small part of them and also perhaps these eight million cans are sampled from a same place and it cannot represent the situation of whole country. These reasons would lead to the result of the survey unreliable and the author should provide more evidence that can prove that eight million cans is enough for testing.

Secondly, the author claims that three of eight chemicals, which can pose a health risk, are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods, which would not lead to the dizziness and nausea. However, the author does not provide some evidences to prove that. Perhaps there are some protected chemicals, which Promofoods does not have, in other kinds of canned foods and they would avoid the dizziness and nausea symptoms. This scenario, if true, the conclusion that the three remaining chemicals would not lead to some nausea symptoms is unacceptable.

Thirdly, even if the other three chemicals would not lead to nausea in the can, the author unfairly generalized that five of eight chemicals were not found, which can prove that the cans of Promofoods do not lead to nausea and dizziness. There may be some other factors which bring out these symptoms rather than chemicals. Such as the material of can of tuna has some deleterious substances which also would lead to nausea, but the worker in Promofoods do not test and find that. Without considering this possible scenario, the arguer cannot justifiably that the can of tuna would not lead to dizziness and nausea.

To sum up, the author’s conclusion is not well supported. To strengthen it the arguer should provide more evidences to support that there are enough returned cans for testing, and the three of chemicals which has found in other kinds of cans would not lead to nausea in the can of tuna. Then the author should provide some details about other factors which may bring out these symptoms. If the author can exclude these possible problems, the conclusion would be more reliable and creditable.      

字数：471   时间：30mins.

wxtxxmUID: 2339833

This magazine article concludes that Promofoods requested to return eight million cans of tuna for testing and the reason is that Promofoods numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea. And Promofoods concludes时态貌似不对that the cans did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk, which is based on the fact that five of eight chemicals were not found in any of the test cans and three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods. However, this magazine article is undermined by some problems. 首段总结了原文作者推理的过程，简洁明了~~不错~

To begin with, the article points out that Promofoods returned eight million cans of tuna for testing, and the author does not give any details about that.这半句力度不够，而且，这句话位于段首，应该把问题的关键即回收回来的罐头可能反应不了全部罐头这个地方指出。首句应该能反应本段内容，但是看了第一句，并不能清楚得知道你下面要表达什么。 It is entirely possible that there are billions of cans of tuna in the country, and eight million is only the small part of them and also perhaps these eight million cans are sampled from a same place and it cannot represent the situation of whole country. These reasons would lead to the result of the survey unreliable and the author should provide more evidence that can prove that eight million cans is enough for testing.
质疑了800million这个数字也许不能代表总体
Secondly, the author claims that three of eight chemicals, which can pose a health risk, are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods, which would not lead to the dizziness and nausea. However, the author does not provide some some 应该换成any 吧？ evidences to prove that. Perhaps there are some protected chemicals, which Promofoods does not have, in other kinds of canned foods and they would avoid the dizziness and nausea symptoms.此处反驳很到位This scenario, if true, the conclusion that the three remaining chemicals would not lead to some nausea symptoms is unacceptable.
质疑了虽然三种化学物质都可以在其他罐头中找到，但这并非是该罐头不含威胁物品的原因Thirdly, even if the other three chemicals would not lead to nausea in the can, the author unfairly generalized that five of eight chemicals were not found, which can prove that the cans of Promofoods do not lead to nausea and dizziness. There may be some other factors which bring out these symptoms rather than chemicals. Such as the material of can of tuna has some deleterious substances which also would lead to nausea, but the worker in Promofoods do not test and find that. Without considering this possible scenario, the arguer cannot justifiably that the can of tuna would not lead to dizziness and nausea.
即便不是这八种物质，也可能是别的原因导致眩晕

To sum up, the author’s conclusion is not well supported. To strengthen it the arguer should provide more evidences to support that there are enough returned cans for testing, and the three of chemicals which has found in other kinds of cans would not lead to nausea in the can of tuna. Then the author should provide some details about other factors which may bring out these symptoms. If the author can exclude these possible problems, the conclusion would be more reliable and creditable.
再次总结性的指出全文的漏洞

LZ貌似已经形成了自己的写作套路，呵呵~~~加油！