argument165 [7\8\9\10]第19次作业

小猪sisiUID: 2453484

165The following appeared in a business magazine.

"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."
511
In the argument, arguer asserts that cans made by Promofoods do not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. To support his argument, arguer offers his evidence that chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans. However, this argument seeming to be sound and logical, contains several severe fallacies.

First of all, the reported cited by arguer is made by Promofoods' testers. This report would be questionable whatever the result is. It is entirely possible that testers from Promofoods would make a false report to show that cans made by Promofoods are healthy and do not contain any chemicals posing a healthy risk. Therefore, if the arguer wants to make people to believe the result of test, he should offer us more convinced reports done by authorities.

Furthermore, even if the report from Promofoods is fair and impartial, we still question the conclusion that the cans did not contain chemicals posing a health risk. On the on hand, reports only display that these samples do not contain five chemicals among eight chemicals that blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea but do contain three chemicals that may cause such symptoms, even though these three chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods. Besides, we do not know the quantity of these three chemicals because maybe a little chemical could not lead to the dizziness and nausea, but if these chemicals exist in a large amount, which will result in severe dizziness and nausea.

On the other hand, even though these samples do not contain such chemicals that would breed dizziness and nausea, but it is possible that cans that had breed sold contains chemicals that would make people who ate them feeling uncomfortable and cause them to dizzy and nausea. Thus, the test is only responsible for the samples and could not warrant the cans that had been sold did not contain such chemicals. Therefore, arguer should substantiate that these samples could stand for all cans and these three chemicals existing in cans would not cause dizziness and nausea.


Moreover, admittedly these samples and these eight millions cans do not contain these common eight chemicals that cause dizziness and nausea, we should not conclude that these cans do not pose a health risk. Because maybe there are other kind of chemicals that do not cause dizziness and nausea but cause people who eat them to feel pain all over the body or other symptoms, in which people are poisoned. Thus, without ruling such possible results, arguer should not conclude that these cans would not make any health risks to people.

To sum up, the argument asserted by arguer is unwarranted and unacceptable. We would doubt about the conclusion that Promofoods' cans do not pose a health risk until the arguer offers us convinced and authorial test reports that illustrate that chemicals in these cans would not cause people to feel dizziness and nausea and at the same time, demonstrates that these cans also do not contain any chemicals that would lead to other illness of people.  

zhuzhuorUID: 2452739

In the argument, (需要加the么?)arguer asserts that cans made by Promofoods do not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. To support his argument, arguer offers his evidence that chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans(个人觉得, 这里应该直接说test的结果, test的过程并不能当作evidence). However, this argument seeming to be sound and logical, contains several severe fallacies.

First of all, the reported cited by arguer is made by Promofoods' testers. This report would be questionable whatever the result is. It is entirely possible that testers from Promofoods would make a false report to show that cans made by Promofoods are healthy and do not contain any chemicals posing a healthy risk. Therefore, if the arguer wants to make people to believe the result of test, he should offer us more convinced reports done by authorities.

Furthermore, even if the report from Promofoods is fair and impartial, we still question the conclusion that the cans did not contain chemicals posing a health risk. On the on hand, reports(前面report一直用的单数, 另外是不是要加the?) only display that these samples do not contain five chemicals among eight chemicals that blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea but do contain three chemicals that may cause such symptoms, even though these three chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods. Besides, we do not know the quantity of these three chemicals because maybe a little chemical could not lead to the dizziness and nausea, but if these chemicals exist in a large amount, which will result in severe dizziness and nausea.

On the other hand, even though these samples do not contain such chemicals that would breed dizziness and nausea, but it is possible that cans that had breed sold contains chemicals that would make people who ate them feeling uncomfortable and cause them to dizzy and nausea. Thus, the test is only responsible for the samples and could not warrant the cans that had been sold did not contain such chemicals. Therefore, arguer should substantiate that these samples could stand for all cans and these three chemicals existing in cans would not cause dizziness and nausea.(这个论点有点牵强, 胡搅蛮缠之嫌-__-让证明都卖出去吃掉的也没问题, 那几乎是不可能的...你可以说recalled cans中间只测试了非常少的一部分, 没有详细的测试过程和采样数据的描述, 不能代表所有的)


Moreover, admittedly these samples and these eight millions cans do not contain these common eight chemicals that cause dizziness and nausea, we should not conclude that these cans do not pose a health risk. Because maybe there are other kind of chemicals that do not cause dizziness and nausea but cause people who eat them to feel pain all over the body or other symptoms, in which people are poisoned. Thus, without ruling such possible results, arguer should not conclude that these cans would not make any health risks to people.

To sum up, the argument asserted by arguer is unwarranted and unacceptable. We would doubt about the conclusion that Promofoods' cans do not pose a health risk until the arguer offers us convinced and authorial test reports that illustrate that chemicals in these cans would not cause people to feel dizziness and nausea and at the same time, demonstrates that these cans also do not contain any chemicals that would lead to other illness of people.

我是第一次给你改作文吧, 呵呵

定冠词用的有点随意, 不过我语感也不好拿不住
另外文章flaws攻击的次序稍微调整下就更好了, 现在不是很能体现even if的感觉