argument117[jet]小组第九次作业

O--honeyUID: 2452493

字数：630   时间：08.2.20
The arguer seems to give the suggestion that people seeking longer and healthier lives should consider moving to small communities based on three evidence he’s found to support the idea that relaxed manner of living in small towns promotes better health and greater longevity than does the lactic pace of life in big cities, and his three evidences is as follows: the first one is that the sick leave taken by individual workers in town of Leeville is fewer than that taken by businesses in the nearby large city of Mason City; the second is that Leeville has one physician for its one thousand residents while the Mason City has the proportion five times as high compared with that in Leeville; and the last one is that the average age of Leeville residents is higher than that of Mason City residents. Well, after serious logically consideration, I’ve found that these evidence can not completely support the idea


Firstly, the first reason he compared the sick leave taken by individual worker with businesses, not mention the example he’s raised is enough or not to be compatible with the truth he wanted to prove, just look at the true he wanted to prove to us the relaxed manner of living is better than hectic pace of life is totally unreasonable, who on earth tell you that workers live a more relaxed life than business men! As to our common sense, the average working hours of workers is 10-12 hours while of business men is totally depending on themselves, the factor affecting the working time is closely due to the need of work or the character of work. So, there is a possibility that the workers in Leeville worked longer than the business men in the Mason City, unless the arguer can ruled out this possibility, he can not speak it as a clear evident to support what he wanted to prove


Secondly, according to the second reason, he said that the proportion of physicians to residents in the Mason City is five times more than that in Leeville, I admitted that this example itself is of no mistake, but the suck thing is that the arguer used it to prove his idea. I don’t think the proportion of physicians to residents is a key here but the proportion of physicians to those who are willing to go to doctors when they are sick. What if there are 400 people who are willing to go to that only one doctor for healing but there are only 4 people in Mason City, so, in this case, the comparable of the proportion has already lost its meanings!


Finally, he talked about the average problem that in Leeville the average is higher than that in Mason City, here I have to say that the arguer lost something to say, that is the population of the two objects and the proportion of moving population. What if the population in Leeville is far more less than in Mason City, just like in our math problems, the fewer the denominator has become, the larger value the result is, and these few people are all old men left home to rest for the rest of their lives while those young people go the big Mason City for a piece of job to earn money, in this case, what if the average being caculated when most of the young people in the village have already went to job, it is of course high but already lost something to explain the truth, whereas the result is absoluted unfair


In sum, the arguer ignored some factors to consider, so we can say that his idea is not advised unless he offered some specific details or statistics to rule out the possibilities I’ve raised!