argument187 0806G STRIVE 第四次作业

lanse17UID: 2459286

In the argument, the author concludes that omega-3 plays a key role in mental health and recommends that all people in United States need to increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression. To support the recommendation, the arguer notes that their ancestors who ate more food including omega-3 were less likely to suffer from depression and the citizens in Japan and Taiwan where fish is largely consumed the report of depression rate is also low. I find logically unconvincing in several aspects.

To begin with, the author fails to establish a strong casual relationship between the omega-3 fatty acids and depression. The two evidences that the author provide are both unconvincing. For the first evidence, the author simply assumes that eating more food which is bound of omega-3 fatty acids is the reason for their less depression. It is entirely possible that their ancestors ate some other unknown foods which were helpful to prevent depression. It is also possible that the living pressure of ancestor is much less than people who live in modern society, and then they were less likely to suffer from depression. For the second evidence, the author fails to provide detail information about the surveying groups that are compared between Asia area and USA. Those detail information includes the age of samples, the profession of samples, the eating habits, and so on. Without ruling out other explanations for the fact that ancestors less suffers from depression and showing that the detail information about the comparison, the author cannot justify that omega-3 fatty acids is helpful to preventing depression.

Secondly, admittedly that omega-3 fatty acids has positive effects on preventing depression, the arguer provides no evidence to support that all the people in the United States need to increase their consumption of fish. Perhaps that only people who suffer from large pressure need to eat omega-3 fatty acids, while children and old people need not. Or perhaps that eating omega-3 fatty acids has negative effects on some diseases, so certain patients should not eat it. If the arguer cannot eliminate other possibilities about eating omega-3 fatty acids, the author's recommendation is unwarranted.

Last but not the least, even though the recommendation that all the people in USA need to increase their consumption of fish, the author fails to support adequate evidence to conclude that the diets of people living in USA will change drastically. Perhaps that the price of fish in this area is too high to afford for many people or perhaps some people is unwilling to eat fish. Without considering those possibilities, the author's conclusion is unconvincing.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer must provide exact explanation for less depression of ancestors and detail information about the compared groups in two areas. To better estimate the recommendation, we also need more information about whether omega-3 fatty acids applies to all people and whether all people can accept it.

谢谢

honglingdangUID: 2436513

In the argument, the author concludes that omega-3 plays a key role in mental health [这不是作者的总结，而是作者做出总结的根据]and recommends that all people in United States need to increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression. To support the recommendation, the arguer notes[mentiones好一点吧] that their ancestors who ate more food including omega-3 were less likely to suffer from depression and the citizens in Japan and Taiwan where fish is largely consumed the report of depression rate is also low[既然这句话的主语是report of depression，那么前面就应该是in Japan and Taiwan，把the citizens去掉]. I find logically unconvincing[find 做发现讲是及物动词，后面要加宾语，可是unconvincing是形容词] in several aspects.

To begin with, the author fails to establish a strong casual relationship between the omega-3 fatty acids and depression. The two evidences that the author provide are both unconvincing. For the first evidence, the author simply assumes that eating more food which is bound of[bound of 啥意思啊，不太明白] omega-3 fatty acids is the reason for their less depression.[叙述不清楚，虽然大致能明白你讲的是古代人多吃……少吃……的事，可是古代人吃的是不饱和脂肪而不是o-3，而且句子里也没提到古代人，只用their代指了，不清楚] It is entirely possible that their ancestors ate some other unknown foods which were helpful to prevent depression. It is also possible that the living pressure of ancestor is much less than people who live in modern society[than前后应该是一样的，而你前面是pressure，后面是people], and then they were less likely to suffer from depression. For the second evidence, the author fails to provide detail information about the surveying groups that are compared between Asia area and USA. Those detail information includes the age of samples, the profession of samples, the eating habits, and so on. Without ruling out other explanations for the fact that ancestors less suffers from depression and showing that the detail information about the comparison, the author cannot justify that omega-3 fatty acids is helpful to preventing depression.[我觉得作者的目的是证明多吃鱼对防止抑郁症有帮助，进而建议美国人都多吃鱼，而不是证明0-3有用，让美国人多吃鱼，当然，这一段的主要论述是没有大问题的，只是最后的总结句偏到了o-3上去，而且，个人认为最后一句不要加上古人那句了，这样会让人觉得很突然的又回去了]

Secondly, admittedly[admittedly是诚然，公认的，也就是说后面that的内容是正确的，语气不对，在这应该是就算承认，勉强承认，或者是假设它正确，而不是肯定的说它是对的。] that omega-3 fatty acids has positive effects on preventing depression, the arguer provides no evidence to support that all the people in the United States need to increase their consumption of fish. Perhaps that only people who suffer from large pressure need to eat omega-3 fatty acids, while children and old people need not. Or perhaps that eating omega-3 fatty acids has negative effects on some diseases, so certain patients should not eat it. If the arguer cannot eliminate other possibilities about eating omega-3 fatty acids, the author's recommendation is unwarranted.

Last but not the least, even though the recommendation that all the people in USA need to increase their consumption of fish[这一句翻译一下是“就算让全美国人都多吃鱼的建议”，这个建议怎么了啊，是好还是坏啊，], the author fails to support adequate evidence to conclude that the diets of people living in USA will change drastically. Perhaps that the price of fish in this area is too high to afford for many people or perhaps some people is unwilling to eat fish. Without considering those possibilities, the author's conclusion is unconvincing.[我感觉这一段就是在画蛇添足，既然是建议就没有强迫人们去买，这一段指出的所谓错误没有必要，在考试的时候还容易造成时间的短缺。而且在字数和结构上，去掉这一段也已经满足了要求，如果你觉得写两段主题段落太少的话完全可以把to begin with那一段拆成两段，]

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer must provide exact explanation for less depression of ancestors and detail information about the compared groups in two areas. To better estimate the recommendation, we also need more information about whether omega-3 fatty acids applies to all people and whether all people can accept it.