Argument158【challenge yourself小组】第一次作业

infant~UID：2242949

TOPIC: ARGUMENT158 - The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites. A total of five sites and 300 people were examined. The study revealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. Furthermore, although it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Therefore, the council is pleased to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. We see no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.
WORDS: 428          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-7-24 9:57:08

In this argument, the author claims that no additional restrictions should be implemented against the size of garbage sites and the number of families living around. To support this conclusion, the author cites a statewide study involving five garbage sites and 300 people. However, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals several critical problems, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the author provides no specific information of the study, which makes the validity of the study doubtful. It is possible that the 300 people involved do not live around a garbage site at the first place. It is also possible that the subjects are primarily from a certain city where garbage sites are legitimately under control. In that case, the study would be meaningless in supporting the final conclusion. Moreover, the pool of garbage sites-5 sites- is far too small tobe sufficient.

Secondly, even assuming that the study is statistically reliable, the single correlation between garbage sites and rashes is insufficient evidence to draw any general conclusion that current system of garbage sites does not pose a health hazard on the nearby residents. It is entirely possible that residents near a garbage site actually suffer from other disease, such as frequent colds, heart attack. It is also possible that these residents will enjoya shorter life regardless of any diseases or not. Without ruling out these interpretations, the reasoning would suffer from severe logical flaw thus is unpersuasive.

Thirdly, the mere fact that no close correlation is between the size of garbage sites and people's health does not lend any convincing support to the conclusion that the current system of garbage sites is not harmful. Perhaps the garbage sites generally work in the late night, therefore interrupt nearby residents' sleeping. Or perhaps the garbage sites are smelly, thus creating a potential unhealthy factor for the nearby environment in the long term.

Finally, the author unfairly assumes that background conditions will remain unchanged if no restrictions are implemented. It is likely that the situation will be worse if left at large. Lacking evidence, the prediction is dubious at best.

To sum up, the author fails to adequately support the conclusion that no significant health hazard is posed by garbage sites to nearby residents, therefore no restrictions are necessary. To strengthen this conclusion, the author must provide sound evidence that the statewide study is statistically and methodologically reliable, and that rash is typical enough to represent an overall health condition of the nearby residents. To further support it, the author must also supply evidence that the situation will not be worse if left at large.

linyunfUID：2405027

好猛啊，30分钟就写完了。In this argument, the author claims that no additional restrictions should be implemented against the size of garbage sites and the number of families living around. To support this conclusion, the author cites a statewide study involving five garbage sites and 300 people. However, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals several critical problems, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the author provides no specific information of the study, which makes the validity of the study doubtful. It is possible that the 300 people involved do not live around a garbage site at the first place. It is also possible that the subjects are primarily from a certain city where garbage sites are legitimately under control. In that case, the study would be meaningless in supporting the final conclusion. Moreover, the pool of garbage sites-5 sites- is far too small tobe sufficient. （我看这段的论证太r了，推测太牵强，你在想点别的推测吧，或者主要攻击数据不足）

Secondly, even assuming that the study is statistically reliable, the single correlation between garbage sites and rashes is insufficient evidence to draw any general conclusion that current system of garbage sites does not pose a health hazard on the nearby residents. It is entirely possible that residents near a garbage site actually suffer from other disease, such as frequent colds, heart attack. It is also possible that these residents will enjoya shorter life regardless of any diseases or not（这话不能用吧，题目主要说垃圾站跟健康的关系，你说他们本来命短有啥用啊。如果他们真的命短，那他们就更应该关心他们的健康问题因而就更在意这个垃圾站了）. Without ruling out these interpretations（用这个词么，用possibility好些）, the reasoning would suffer from severe logical flaw thus is unpersuasive.

Thirdly, the mere fact that no close correlation is between the size of garbage sites and people's health does not lend any convincing support to the conclusion that the current system of garbage sites is not harmful. （最好先看下别人承认的提纲，感觉你的逻辑攻击点不大符合题目，这里题中说调查发现有一点小关系，但他把这个result给忽视了）Perhaps the garbage sites generally work in the late night, therefore interrupt nearby residents' sleeping（嗨，大哥别再推测啦，argument不能只用推测来攻击的）. Or perhaps the garbage sites are smelly, thus creating a potential unhealthy factor for the nearby environment in the long term.Finally, the author unfairly assumes that background conditions will remain unchanged if no restrictions are implemented. It is likely that the situation will be worse if left at large. Lacking evidence, the prediction is dubious at best.（又是推测？）

To sum up, the author fails to adequately support the conclusion that no significant health hazard is posed by garbage sites to nearby residents, therefore no restrictions are necessary. To strengthen this conclusion, the author must provide sound evidence that the statewide study is statistically and methodologically reliable, and that rash is typical enough to represent an overall health condition of the nearby residents. To further support it, the author must also supply evidence that the situation will not be worse if left at large.（结尾不错）

[ 本帖最后由 linyunf 于 2008-7-25 11:06 编辑 ]

qilluraUID：2186638

In this argument, the author claims that no additional restrictions should be implemented against the size of garbage sites and the number of families living around. To support this conclusion, the author cites a statewide study involving five garbage sites and 300 people. However, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals several critical problems, which render it unconvincing as it stands.To begin with, the author provides no specific information of the study, which makes the validity of the study doubtful. It is possible that the 300 people involved do not live around a garbage site at the first place. It is also possible that the subjects are primarily from a certain city where garbage sites are legitimately under control. In that case, the study would be meaningless in supporting the final conclusion. Moreover, the amount of cites selected in the pool-5 sites- is far too small to be sufficient. Secondly, even assuming that the study is statistically reliable, the single correlation between garbage sites and rashes is insufficient evidence to draw any general conclusion that current system of garbage sites does not pose a health hazard on the nearby residents. It is entirely possible that residents near a garbage site actually suffer from other disease, such as frequent colds, heart attack. It is also possible that these residents will enjoy(suffer?) a shorter life regardless of any diseases or not. Without ruling out these interpretations, the reasoning would suffer from severe logical flaw thus is unpersuasive.Thirdly, the mere fact that no close correlation is between the size of garbage sites and people's health does not lend any convincing support to the conclusion that the current system of garbage sites is not harmful. Perhaps the garbage sites generally work in the late night, therefore interrupt nearby residents' sleeping. Or perhaps the garbage sites are smelly, thus creating a potential unhealthy factor for the nearby environment in the long term.(我也感觉这一段没什么说服力)Finally, the author unfairly assumes that background conditions will remain unchanged if no restrictions are implemented. It is likely that the situation will be worse if left at large. Lacking evidence, the prediction is dubious at best.（这一段好短- -）To sum up, the author fails to adequately support the conclusion that no significant health hazard is posed by garbage sites to nearby residents, therefore no restrictions are necessary. To strengthen this conclusion, the author must provide sound evidence that the statewide study is statistically and methodologically reliable, and that rash is typical enough to represent an overall health condition of the nearby residents. To further support it, the author must also supply evidence that the situation will not be worse if left at large.

恩 总体感觉很好啦～

[ 本帖最后由 qillura 于 2008-7-25 14:39 编辑 ]