argument165【7\8\910】第十九次作业

1001storyUID: 2516918

"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods."
WORDS: 470(490)

The argument appears well-present at first glance, but it fails to afford more valuable information in the paragraph to support the Promofoods' conclusion after a serious consideration. The arguer proposes that the tuna cans could not cause the dizziness and nausea of customers, because of the result of an unreliable test. Resting on a series of unsubstantiated evidence, the argument can not convince us that the tuna cans are not poisonous and potential customers could purchase these tuna cans without any apprehension.

Firstly, the suspected three chemicals naturally found in all canned food are not proved them harmless at all with this universal feature. There is not any valid evidence in the argument to point out that the canned food with how many these chemicals can be ensured to be safe for us. It is possible that some other kinds of canned foods with such chemicals may also make customer feel dizziness and nausea, which are not concerned in this argument. Perhaps, these chemicals combined with certain food such as tuna may be the real reason why customer will suffer from the dizziness and nausea after they eat cans. If the author can not explain the factors mentioned above, he could not exclude that the taunt can is a health risk.

Additionally, the eight million cans returned for testing may not include the cans that the customer complained and it is totally possible that these cans in the test may sampled in other states and not the region where complaints came from. Because the author does not supply any evidence about how and where Promofoods recalled the eight million taunt cans. The samples, in it self, could not provide any randomness and representativeness of this test.

Finally, the author believe that only the eight chemicals which are the most commonly blamed for the dizziness and nausea could bring people such symptoms. Perhaps other kinds of chemicals rarely known for us included in the taunt cans are the true causes for these complaints. Moreover, the five of these common chemicals, not detected in these tested cans, does not represent that all of the cans returned by Promofoods do not have these harmful chemicals. The arguer never stresses how many cans are tested during this process and what is the relative percentage of cans involved in Promofoods’ test. It is at least likely the percentage is extremely small and could not completely represent all samples. Without ruling out these assumptions above, the arguer may not conclude the final judgment from a false test.

To sum up, the author fails to lend a strong evidence to support what the argument maintains. If the argument had included a further study of the eight chemicals and a concrete relationship between tuna cans and the dizziness and nausea, it would have been more thoroughly and comprehensively acceptable. In a word, it is too early to put out our determination depending on these arguable factors mentioned above.

哈哈！昨天给自己放了个假哈！！


[ 本帖最后由 1001story 于 2008-8-10 14:19 编辑 ]