argument185 飞跃dreams小组第四次作业

yolanda419UID: 2420192

Argument165 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."
   
     字数：312


           In this argument, Promofoods concluded that his cans didn’t contain chemicals that posed a health risk basing on the fact that five of eight chemical most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea were not found in any of the tested cans, while three were contained in all other kinds of canned foods. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little support to P’s conclusion.
        First, are the tested samples typical of all the recalled cans? In general, samples for test should be able to represent all the recalled cans. However, from the argument, we find no sign of such procedures for random sampling, and it is possible that the sample is not representative enough to reflect the situation of the 800 recalled cans. Similarly, we are not informed how many of the samples, perhaps, the tested samples are only twenty even or much less, which can not stand for the 800 recalled cans. In these cases, the test would loss its meaning and cannot say anything to the conclusion.
    Even though the sample accords to randomicity and is big enough to stand for all recalled cans. There may be other chemicals contained in the cans that cause dizziness and nausea aside from the eight most commonly blamed.
    Furthermore, three remaining suspected chemicals are found in all other kinds of canned foods. Thus it is possible that these three chemicals also contained in all of the recalled cans, even they were all superfluous. If this is the case, the complaint from the consumers is rational.
    To sum up, P’s conclusion is unconvincing as it relies on incredible evidence. To strengthen its conclusion, P should provide more evidences to show that the sample is representative of the all recalled cans, and rule out other possible chemicals contained in the cans which can also cause dizziness and nausea.

  

gre_killer_wuUID: 2451830

           In this argument, Promofoods concluded that his(its) cans didn’t(doesn't) contain chemicals that posed a health risk basing on the fact that five of eight chemical most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea were not found in any of the tested cans, while three were contained in all other kinds of canned foods. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little support to P’s conclusion.

        First, are the tested samples typical of all the recalled cans? In general, samples for test should be able to represent all the recalled cans. However, from the argument, we find no sign of such procedures for random sampling, and it is possible that the sample is not representative enough to reflect the situation of the 800 recalled cans. Similarly, we are not informed how many of the samples, perhaps, the tested samples are only twenty even or much less, which can not stand for the 800 recalled cans. In these cases, the test would loss its meaning and cannot say anything to the conclusion.

    Even though the sample accords to randomicity and is big enough to stand for all recalled cans. There may be other chemicals contained in the cans that cause dizziness and nausea aside from the eight most commonly blamed.
感觉这一段的论证有点单薄，可以适当多加点具体的例子作为补充。

    Furthermore, three remaining suspected chemicals are found in all other kinds of canned foods. Thus it is possible that these three chemicals also contained in all of the recalled cans, even they were all superfluous.(superfluous是“过剩，多余，不必要”的意思，你要表达“超标”的意思，可以用这个短语to exceed the standard) If this is the case, the complaint from the consumers is rational.

    To sum up, P’s conclusion is unconvincing as it relies on incredible evidence. To strengthen its conclusion, P should provide more evidences to show that the sample is representative of the all recalled cans, and rule out other possible chemicals contained in the cans which can also cause dizziness and nausea.

感觉你的作文里用词和语法的错误比较明显，以后务必注意这一点

[ 本帖最后由 gre_killer_wu 于 2008-2-15 21:01 编辑 ]