Argument158【challenge yourself小组】第一次作业by小火龙33

小火龙33UID: 2448175

       In this argument, the council concludes that the current system of garbage sites dose not harm the health of people living the sites significantly, so there is no need to make any restriction on the size of trash sites or the numbers of homes built near the sites. To support the conclusion, the council cites the following facts about a recent survey involving five sites and 300 people: only a small correlation between living with a trash site nearby and unexplained rashes, and only a slightly higher incidence of the rashes among the people living near the largest trash site. Close scrutiny of this argument would reveal groundless the conclusion is.
       In the first place, it is unreasonable to draw any conclusion about the effects of trash sits on people’s health living nearby based on the statistics in this survey. Depending on the total number of residents in the state, it is entirely possible that five sites and 300 people are not representative of the general. Perhaps the five sites examined have some characteristics concerning environment which cause the unexplained rashes. Or perhaps the people studied are sensitive to the environment, and maybe allergic to some certain materials in the garbage. For that matter, perhaps the majority of the people involving are adults, while it is the children and the aged who are more likely to be affected by the trash site. Besides, the information provided in the poll is too vague to be informative, since we cannot decide how much is the correlation between living a trash site and unexplained rashes from the statement “a small statistical correlation”. In short, until the council substantiates the statistics in the survey are representative for the whole state, he cannot convince me that trash sites do little harm to the health of people nearby and there is no need to regulate the current system of garbage sites.                 
       Another problem that undermines the argument is the limited aspects of the survey about the health problem. The study focused only on the unexpected rashes without considering whether other diseases would be caused or giving any evidence that the rash is the only standard. As I know, some materials in the garbage are harmful to man’s lung, compared to which the rashes are so trivial.
Even if the study of the rashes is enough to reveal the garbage’s harmful effect on people, the result of the survey itself hits back the council’s conclusion. No matter how slightly, the result shows that the size of the trash site and the incidence of the rashes are directly proportional. So the council fails to rule out the possibility that garbage sites do cause unexpected rashes among people living nearby and that the larger the trash sites are, the more likely they will cause rashes.
       In addition, there are some other fallacies. We can infer from common sense that many serious diseases have incubation period before it burst out. It is entirely possible that the communities studied are constrcucted recently.
       In sum, the council’s optimistic conclusion is unconvicing as it stands, since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to it. To bolster the recommendation the council must provide clear evidence that the five garbage sites studied can represent the general condition of all sites throughout the state and the 300 people involving in the survey can represent the general physical condition of residents at the state. To better assess the conclusion, I would need to know wether some other diseases are caused among residents living near the trash sites.


[ 本帖最后由 小火龙33 于 2008-7-24 18:11 编辑 ]

tangreihanUID: 2499991

格式有点乱，最好先放到Word里检察一下拼写错误，可能会有惊喜的发现
表达流畅，向你学习

qilluraUID: 2186638

In this argument, the council concludes that the current system of garbage sites dose not harm the health of people living to the sites significantly, so there is no need to make any restriction on the size of trash sites or the numbers of homes built near the sites. To support the conclusion, the council cites the following facts about a recent survey involving five sites and 300 people: only a small correlation between living with a trash site nearby and unexplained rashes, and only a slightly higher incidence of the rashes among the people living near the largest trash site冒号后面这一句成分不完整，再检查检查. Close scrutiny of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.
       In the first place, it is unreasonable to draw any conclusion about the effects of trash sits on people’s health living nearby based on the statistics in this survey. Depending on the total number of residents in the state, it is entirely possible that five sites and 300 people are not representative of the general. Perhaps the five sites examined have some characteristics concerning environment which cause the unexplained rashes. Or perhaps the people studied are sensitive to the environment, and maybe allergic to some certain materials in the garbage. For that matter, perhaps the majority of the people involving are adults, while it is the children and the aged who are more likely to be affected by the trash site. Besides, the information provided in the poll is too vague to be informative, since we cannot decide how much is the correlation between living a trash site and unexplained rashes from the statement “a small statistical correlation”. In short, until the council substantiates the statistics in the survey are representative for the whole state, he cannot convince me that trash sites do little harm to the health of people nearby and there is no need to regulate the current system of garbage sites.                 
       Another problem that undermines the argument is the limited aspects of the survey about the health problem. The study focused only on the unexpected rashes without considering whether other diseases would be caused or giving any evidence that the rash is the only standard. As I know, some materials in the garbage are harmful to man’s lung, compared to which the rashes are so trivial.
Even if the study of the rashes is enough to reveal the garbage’s harmful effect on people, the result of the survey itself hits back the council’s conclusion. No matter how slightly, the result shows that the size of the trash site and the incidence of the rashes are directly proportional. So the council fails to rule out the possibility that garbage sites do cause unexpected rashes among people living nearby and that the larger the trash sites are, the more likely they will cause rashes.
       In addition, there are some other fallacies. We can infer from common sense that many serious diseases have incubation period before it burst out. It is entirely possible that the communities studied are constructed recently.
       In sum, the council’s optimistic conclusion is unconvincing as it stands, since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to it. To bolster the recommendation the council must provide clear evidence that the five garbage sites studied can represent the general condition of all sites throughout the state and the 300 people involved in the survey can represent the general physical condition of residents at the state. To better assess the conclusion, I would need to know whether some other diseases are caused among residents living near the trash sites.

语言很赞～还是有一些小问题- - 逻辑上也很清晰