Argument38--Thrive小组第4次作业，欢迎榴莲

z12y12l12UID: 2452277

TOPIC: 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."

In the newsletter, the author recommends that people use Ichthaid everyday in order to prevent colds and thus lower absenteeism, based on a study that in East Meria where people frequently consumes fish, they only visit the doctor once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. The argument seems reasonable at first glance, nevertheless, it suffers from several critical fallacies and logical faults.

The first thing I want to point out is that the author neglect to provide us any persuasive information about the average rate of catching colds per year. The author simply confused the rate of catching colds with the rate people visit doctor for the treatment of colds. It is absolutely possible that people in East Meria do not prefer commit such a trivial illness to the doctor. Even if they are equivalent, the author did not inform us about the average in a nationwide scope. This flaw makes the author's assumption that people in East Meria is more healthier is unwarranted.

What is more, even if the author could provide the evidence in the future that in East Meria the personal average rate of catching cold is below national average, he fails to establish a causal relationship between the lower average in East Meria and the high fish consumption. The low average could be caused by the fact that in East Meria the climate is much warmer, or the people there are more concerned about the change of weather, or even they do much more daily exercises than people always do in the whole country. The existence of other factors which affect the rate mentioned above makes the author's statement unconvincing.

Before I come to my conclusion, I have to point out that there is no reason for people to take Ichthaid - which is described as a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil - everyday for preventing colds. The author provided no evidence to support that it is Ichthaid in the fish could help people in East Meria prevent colds. And maybe it is other possible nutrition contained in fish that could help people defending against cold. Without an experiment, no one of us could tell that which nutrition in fish could be the aid.

To sum up, before the author could provide any convincing evidence to support his assumptions or eliminate any other possible reason that will help people defend against colds, the recommendation that we should use Ichthaid as a good way to prevent colds is not validated. Thus, it could not be even a choice to reduce absenteeism.

提纲：
1. confuse cold catching rate with doctor visiting rate.
2. no casual relationship between fish and health.
3. no casual relationship between Ichthaid and fish.

44x字好像...写了1小时左右，主要模板还没开始整理，虽然已经有写作的感觉了。Argument感觉渐渐轻车熟路了...