Argument38--Thrive小组第4次作业

sbsUID: 2453499

提纲：
1调查问题
2错误因果
3充分必要性


题目：ARGUMENT38 - The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.

"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."
字数：683         

In this newsletter, the arguer claims that the people in West Meria (WM) should daily use Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, in order to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer points out that a study shows that in nearby East Meria (EM), where fish consumption is very high, the people merely get cold. In addition, the arguer assumes that the colds are the most frequently reason for absences from school and work. However, the perspective, be it seemingly reasonable at the first glance, suffers from several critical flaws.

To begin with, the result of the study lacks of credibility. First, the statistics were based only on data from some people living in EM, however, it is entirely possible that those people are not representative of all the citizen in EM, let alone WM. In addition, since the arguer does not provide any details of the people involved in the survey, we know nothing about their ages, genders, current health conditions, eating habits, living patterns -- all of which serve to the reliability of the survey. It is entirely possible that the people living in EM often build their bodies and take good care of themselves, so they can hardly get the disease, such as cold. Moreover, the arguer ignores the possibility that maybe the people do not always go to the hospital even if they catch colds, and that the huge consumption of the fish maybe export to other places rather than eating by the citizens in EM. Without considering the comprehensive sample data source and eliminating these possible scenarios, the arguer cannot simply rely on these statistics to support the claims that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds.

What is more, the arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between colds and absences from school and work. It is unfair to assume that the former is responsible for the later. As a matter of fact, cold is not a good indication of absences, which might result from some other factors, such as fever, laziness, emergency, even the earthquake. For example, if somebody went to the bar late in the night with his friends and got drunk deeply, it is very likely that he will not go to work next morning and using cold as an alibi to the boss in order to avoid the penalty, such as docking. In short, without ruling out such possibilities, the arguer's conclusion remains dubious at best.

Last but not the least, the arguer assumes that the proposed measure -- eating Ichthaid daily -- is both necessary and sufficient for prevent colds and reduce absenteeism, yet the arguer does not provide any evidence to solidify either assumption. Perhaps the arguer can also achieve the objective by other means -- for instance, using the punishment, such as more homework to the students who often absent from school, or reducing the salary for the workers who often absent from work. Even if eating the fish oil is necessary to meet the arguer's goal, it is entirely possible that this action by itself would not suffice -- due to the possibilities that the people will still get other diseases or encounter emergencies such as an accident for their parents or children, so they cannot go to school or work even if then do not get colds. All in all, lacking such evidence, I cannot be swayed by the arguer's poorly developed conclusion.

To sum up, this argument is neither sound nor persuasive as it stands. Not only does it ignores certain significant concerns, but also cites in the analysis with the evidence and study, which fails to lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer must present more facts that colds is the most frequent reason for absences from school and work. To bolster the argument, the arguer would have to produce more specific evidence concerning the background of the people who participate in the survey. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

已用word自己修改过。

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2008-2-10 16:17 编辑 ]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

In this newsletter, the arguer claims that the people in West Meria (WM) should daily use Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, in order to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To strengthen(claim后面没有论证 ，何来加强？注意用词准确性) the conclusion, the arguer points out that a study shows that in nearby East Meria (EM), where fish consumption is very high, the people merely get cold. In addition, the arguer assumes that the colds are the most frequently reason for absences from school and work. However, the perspective, be it seemingly reasonable at the first glance, suffers from several critical flaws.

To begin with, the result of the study lacks of credibility(还是用词准确性的问题，＂可信度＂这样的概念只能置疑调查机构的科学性，也就是说提出这个当段首句等于你这段在说作者撒谎或者来源错误). First, the statistics were based only on data from some people living in EM, however, it is entirely possible that those people are not representative of all the citizen in EM, let alone WM.(见此文：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-620337-1-1.html. 另外即使要批这一点，就一句话带过也显得缺乏说服力．没有代表性又意味着什么？而let alone WM则是另外一个问题了，不是在置疑调查取样广泛性而是在置疑EM的调查是否对WM有效。) In addition, since the arguer does not provide any details of the people involved in the survey, we know nothing about their ages, genders, current health conditions, eating habits, living patterns -- all of which serve to the reliability of the survey. It is entirely possible that the people living in EM often build their bodies and take good care of themselves, so they can hardly get the disease, such as cold. Moreover, the arguer ignores the possibility that maybe the people do not always go to the hospital even if they catch colds, and that the huge consumption of the fish maybe export to other places rather than eating by the citizens in EM.(同样问题，不要一句话就想解决自己想到的所有问题，这样会造成你的论证不足。时间不够的话找重点说) Without considering the comprehensive sample data source and eliminating these possible scenarios, the arguer cannot simply rely on these statistics to support the claims that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds.

此段结构问题在于几个分论点排列无序，想到一个说一个，造成攻击显得混乱，就是把作者的错误都拿出来说了下，除了那个em的人可能锻炼身体的可能性外其它问题都没有细说．

而主题句仅仅是study lacks of credibility的话这些问题也无法往下细说．因为你的攻击意图不明－－难道要证明作者没有信誉么？回看题目，这个study的关键在于后面一句话＂Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds."也就是说攻击这个study的目的在于说明此研究无法证明吃鱼能组织感冒．

如果让我来梳理这个攻击点中各个小问题的逻辑层次的话，应该是：
a, 看医生少不代表感冒少
b, 鱼类消耗多不代表吃鱼多
c, 即使该地吃鱼多感冒少，二者也不一定有因果关系．
其中a,b并列．另外可以补充d，即使在em这种关系成立，在mw也未必可行．

看的出你练argument很久了，对于错误很敏感．但还需要在行文中注意结构，即对于问题攻击顺序的组织．写argument不是辩论赛，是写文章，需要做到well-organized．


What is more, the arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between colds and absences from school and work. It is unfair to assume that the former is responsible for the later.(这句跟前一句一个意思，多余) As a matter of fact, cold is not a good indication of absences, which might result from some other factors, such as fever, laziness, emergency, even the earthquake. For example, if somebody went to the bar late in the night with his friends and got drunk deeply, it is very likely that he will not go to work next morning and using cold as an alibi to the boss in order to avoid the penalty, such as docking. In short, without ruling out such possibilities, the arguer's conclusion remains dubious at best.

此段问题依然是攻击方向不明，注意作者说感冒是造成工作缺席的原因那句话：Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work．也就是说作者是有论据的．你上来就说作者没有建立这种关系，因为缺席可能有其它原因，却没提到作者的论据，这就好象是选择性失明．当然你在行文中给出了作者论据无效的可能性，但却没有把它放到重要位置上，而是在一个漫长的叙事过程中(这样造成你的论据不足，你提出的假设越具体，发生的可能性就越小，你的立场也就越不稳定)提到，这就显得主次不分．事实上只要说明＂something given is not always the truth＂就行了，其它的可能性再细说．

最后，此段孤立于全文．很明显你的攻击是冲着感冒造成缺席去的．但作者的中心论点不是这个，是用鱼油防止感冒．那么这一段的安排就欠妥．需要提及＂即使解决了感冒，缺席也未必会减少＂


Last but not the least, the arguer assumes that the proposed measure -- eating Ichthaid daily -- is both necessary and sufficient for prevent colds and reduce absenteeism, yet the arguer does not provide any evidence to solidify either assumption.(对一个假设开火就行了，后一个和前一个之间的逻辑问题你已经论证过) Perhaps the arguer can also achieve the objective by other means -- for instance, using the punishment, such as more homework to the students who often absent from school, or reducing the salary for the workers who often absent from work. (有其它措施不代表这个措施就不该采用，这句无法成为反对作者建议的论证)　Even if eating the fish oil is necessary to meet the arguer's goal, it is entirely possible that this action by itself would not suffice -- due to the possibilities that the people will still get other diseases or encounter emergencies such as an accident for their parents or children, so they cannot go to school or work even if then do not get colds.(你这个逻辑也有问题，类比说明：如果消灭了癌症，人类还可能得爱滋病，是不是因为这个我们就不应该消灭癌症了呢？少一样是一样，作者说的是reduce，而不是annihilate) All in all, lacking such evidence(what evidence?), I cannot be swayed by the arguer's poorly developed conclusion.

此段的论证基本不成立．如果你要说作者建议不对的话应该从它本身去说，而不是从别的可能性去说，脱离的问题谈问题就会跑题．反驳点很多，必然吃鱼和吃鱼油不一样，还有其它营养成分作用；有人过敏，有可能胆固醇过高，副作用不明；是否成本太高，值不值得．等等．

To sum up, this argument is neither sound nor persuasive as it stands. Not only does it ignores certain significant concerns, but also cites in the analysis with the evidence and study, which fails to lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer must present more facts that colds is the most frequent reason for absences from school and work. To bolster the argument(红字部分是一样意思，干嘛拆成两句说？), the arguer would have to produce more specific evidence concerning the background of the people who participate in the survey. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

结尾段由于概括需要无法做到细节化，导致你这里的evidence，study都指代不明，说了也不知道再说什么，所以还是简略些好．

总体而言LZ主要的问题有二

一，论证结构不明确，组织比较混乱．
学会让步假设能让你的思路清楚很多，因为它可以使每个错误都被孤立出来，避免论证方向不明确．建议看一下这个帖子：
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-274535-1-1.html

二，具体论证过程过于潦草

可能是前一个问题造成的，你论证基本就是一带而过，不求细节，这样就显得论证不足．所谓的细节，就是一些抽象的词该怎么理解，比如insufficient, does not provide, evidence，等等．

我以前写过的习作，仅供参考：
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=577778&highlight=argument38%2Blastangel

iq28斑竹对题目的分析和同主题贴，可以参考下系统化解读argument的方法：
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-637949-1-1.html

希望有所帮助，加油



[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2008-2-10 16:15 编辑 ]

firhadayUID: 2287086

使徒斑斑改的,我也来学习下~~~