argument165 飞跃dreams小组-第4次作业

lyokaUID: 2451632

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."
Word:  431      Time: 60 minutes
The arguer concludes that the cans produced by Promofoods did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods 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, and the remaining three ones which were found in the cans are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods. However, what the arguer says is not quite convincing.

In the first place, the arguer says the chemists only tested whether the cans contained eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea. Then what about other chemicals which may also cause the same symptom? It is possible that there exist chemicals which are not commonly found but may also cause dizziness and nausea in the cans produced by Promofoods. The author just treats a lack of proof that the cans contain some chemicals which pose a health risk as constituting a sufficient proof that they do not have any chemicals that do harm to people’s health.

Even granted that the cans do not contain other chemicals which pose a health risk, the arguer can not reach the conclusion that the cans are not harmful to people. Since the chemists did find three of the eight chemicals that may cause dizziness and nausea, it is possible that they are responsible for the disease. Although the author says that they are naturally found in all canned foods, the result of the test did not mention the quantity of the chemicals. If the chemicals found in the cans are much more than the safe level, it is probable that the cans are the reason of consumers’ disease.

Besides, there exist another two flaws which also make the conclusion not very credible. One is that the chemists are sent by the Promofoods. Since the canned food is produced by their company, there is a possibility that they may hide some facts that will harm the profit of their company. The other is the author does not give how the sample consists. If the sample is too small or the cans are not randomly selected in the area where most ill persons were found, the test does not make any difference.

To sum up, the conclusion is not quite convincing. In the lack of how the tested cans are selected, the sample may not be representative. And before a more thorough test is taken, any conclusion is so hasty that it is of little credibility.

gre_killer_wuUID: 2451830

The arguer concludes that the cans produced by Promofoods did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods 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, and the remaining three ones which were found in the cans are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods. However, what the arguer says is not quite convincing.

In the first place, the arguer says the chemists only tested whether the cans contained eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea. Then what about other chemicals which may also cause the same symptom? It is possible that there exist chemicals which are not commonly found but may also cause dizziness and nausea in the cans produced by Promofoods. The author just treats a lack of proof that the cans contain some chemicals which pose a health risk as constituting a sufficient proof that they do not have any chemicals that do harm to people’s health.(too long, too complex, solution: the absence of evidence that some hamful chemicals exist is not equal to the safeness of the cans)

Even granted that the cans do not contain other chemicals which pose a health risk, the arguer can not reach the conclusion that the cans are not harmful to people. Since the chemists did find three of the eight chemicals that may cause dizziness and nausea, it is possible that they are responsible for the disease. Although the author says that they are naturally found in all canned foods, the result of the test did not mention the quantity of the chemicals. If the chemicals found in the cans are much more than the safe level, it is probable that the cans are the reason of consumers’ disease.
(this part is well-reasoned, I think)

Besides, there exist another two flaws which also make the conclusion not very credible. One is that the chemists are sent by the Promofoods. Since the canned food is produced by their company, there is a possibility that they may hide some facts that will harm the profit of their company. (the reality of the statement should not be suspected, what ETS wants is excellent analysis to the logical flaws)The other is the author does not give how the sample consists. If the sample is too small or the cans are not randomly selected in the area where most ill persons were found, the test does not make any difference.

To sum up, the conclusion is not quite convincing. In the lack of how the tested cans are selected, the sample may not be representative. And before a more thorough test is taken, any conclusion is so hasty that it is of little credibility.

期待你的回拍
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=799286&extra=page%3D1