Argument 158<challenge yourself >第一次作业by Tracycxt

TracycxtUID：2505888

158.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.


In this argument, the author cites the result of survey showing that it is not necessary to restrict the size of the garbage ,since only a small fraction of resident living near the garbage suffer from unexplained rashes. In addition, the author also provide the fact that although the likelihood of dwellers who live close to large size of garbage having higher incidence of the rashes, it could not deep affect the health of resident. At the first glance, the recommendation might be somewhat reasonable, but a careful examination of these facts, however, reveals that none of them could bolster up the argument.
  To begin with, one problem with the argument involves the statistics of the garbage and people that would be viewed as the fundamental assumption to support the conclusion. It is unreasonable to draw conclusion about whether restricting the size of garbage based on the a total of five sites and 300 people which could lack .However, the author offers no evidence to substantiate that these objects polled constitute a adequately large sample of people and garbage, and to indicate how to maintain its randomness and representative .
  Secondly, even assuming that the likelihood of suffering from unexplained rashes is so leat , it is not sufficient to indicate that people living near the garbage do not expose to a significant health hazard. It is entirely possible that some particular element of trash possess could easily affect residents' health into another adverse result, such as explained rashes, asthma, and so on. Moreover, the author also fails to provide the evidence indicating why consider the trashes as the only standard to judge whether people are health or not. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot justify conclude that
Finally, since that people living near the largest garbage have more possibility to sicken, the author can not suffice that it is no use regulating the size of trash sites. Common sense informs me that the process of having a serious health problem which uncertain first will become so apparently. Chances are that patients have possibility to have disease which is likely leading to destructive hazards, without being aware of undergoing it. Besides, a variety of illness, require more accurate research more profound than it was applied to The Trash-Site Safety Council. Consequently, such possibilities could serve to undermine the author’s conclusion that the restriction of size of trash site is not necessary.
In sum, the argument is soundless because the evidence cited in the analysis can not lend the credible support to what the author mentions. To strengthen the argument, the author have to demonstrate the detailed survey about any other diseases which could be caused by amount of garbage .In order to better evaluate the argument, we need more information about the period of research and about whether the sample of research are representative or not.


[ 本帖最后由 Tracycxt 于 2008-7-24 22:59 编辑 ]

cjx1987UID：2515559

In this argument, the author cites the result of survey showing（觉得这里应当用质疑的语气陈述，至少说成 that it is not necessary to restrict the size of the garbage ,since only a small fraction of resident living near the garbage suffer from unexplained rashes. In addition, the author also provide the fact that although the likelihood of dwellers who live close to large size of garbage having higher incidence of the rashes, it could not deep affect the health of resident. At the first glance, the recommendation might be somewhat reasonable, but a careful examination of these facts, however, reveals that none of them could bolster up the argument.
  To begin with, one problem with the argument involves the statistics of the garbage and people that would be viewed as the fundamental assumption to support the conclusion. It is unreasonable to draw conclusion about whether restricting the size of garbage based on the a total of five sites and 300 people which could lack(觉得别扭，我会用which could be sufficient  ）.However, the author offers no evidence to substantiate that these objects polled constitute a adequately large sample of people and garbage(题中说的是垃圾场，garbage有这个意思吗。。）and to indicate how to maintain its randomness and representative .
  Secondly, even assuming that the likelihood of suffering from unexplained rashes is so leat , it is not sufficient to indicate that people living near the garbage do not expose to a significant health hazard. It is entirely possible that some particular element of trash possess could easily affect residents' health into another adverse result, such as explained rashes, asthma, and so on. Moreover, the author also fails to provide the evidence indicating why consider the trashes as the only standard to judge whether people are healthy or not. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot justify conclude that
Finally, since that people living near the largest garbage have more possibility to sicken, the author can not suffice that it is no use regulating the size of trash sites. Common sense informs me that the process of having a serious health problem which uncertain first will become so apparently. Chances are that patients have possibility to have disease which is likely leading to destructive hazards, without being aware of undergoing it. Besides, a variety of illness, require more accurate research more profound than it was applied to The Trash-Site Safety Council. Consequently, such possibilities could serve to undermine the author’s conclusion that the restriction of size of trash site is not necessary.
In sum, the argument is soundless because the evidence cited in the analysis can not lend the credible support to what the author mentions. To strengthen the argument, the author have to demonstrate the detailed survey about any other diseases which could be caused by amount of garbage .In order to better evaluate the argument, we need more information about the period of research and about whether the sample of research are representative or not.
对于你论证的几点我说不上什么，自己对这篇文章的论证点也没什么感觉，觉得你的语言不流畅，在模仿北美的同时或者应该试着形成自己的语言

wanghugigiUID：2465119

In this argument, the author cites the result of survey showing that it is not necessary to restrict the size of the garbage ,since only a small fraction of resident living near the garbage suffer from unexplained rashes. In addition, the author also provide the fact that although the likelihood of dwellers who live close to large size of garbage having higher incidence of the rashes, it could not deep affect the health of resident. At the first glance, the recommendation might be somewhat reasonable, but a careful examination of these facts, however, reveals that none of them could bolster up the argument.
调查样本问题  To begin with, one problem with the argument involves the statistics of the garbage and people that would be viewed as the fundamental assumption to support the conclusion. It is unreasonable to draw conclusion about whether restricting the size of garbage based on the a total of five sites and 300 people which could lack .However, the author offers no evidence to substantiate that these objects polled constitute a adequately large sample of people and garbage, and to indicate how to maintain its randomness and representative .
患rashes病人少也不能说住在垃圾场周围的人没有患病危险  Secondly, even assuming that the likelihood of suffering from unexplained rashes is so leat , it is not sufficient to indicate that people living near the garbage do not expose to a significant health hazard. It is entirely possible that some particular element of trash possess could easily affect residents' health into another adverse result, such as explained rashes, asthma, and so on. Moreover, the author also fails to provide the evidence indicating why consider the trashes as the only standard to judge whether people are health or not. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot justify conclude that
不能简单推断垃圾场的大小不用限制Finally, since that people living near the largest garbage have more possibility to sicken, the author can not suffice that it is no use regulating the size of trash sites. Common sense informs me that the process of having a serious health problem which uncertain first will become so apparently. Chances are that patients have possibility to have disease which is likely leading to destructive hazards, without being aware of undergoing it. Besides, a variety of illness, require more accurate research more profound than it was applied to The Trash-Site Safety Council. Consequently, such possibilities could serve to undermine the author’s conclusion that the restriction of size of trash site is not necessary.

In sum, the argument is soundless because the evidence cited in the analysis can not lend the credible support to what the author mentions. To strengthen the argument, the author have to demonstrate the detailed survey about any other diseases which could be caused by amount of garbage .In order to better evaluate the argument, we need more information about the period of research and about whether the sample of research are representative or not.

第三段和第四段按理应该围绕同一个TS攻击，但你基本上都是一段内有两个错误，而且攻击的力度都差不多，貌似不太合理。
我这也是第一篇，所以其余的我也说不太上来。