argumen165【FF小组】 by duyuan3377 第12次模考 最后一次啦

duyuan3377UID: 2415765

TOPIC: ARGUMENT165 - The 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."
WORDS: 444          TIME: 00:28:53          DATE: 2008-12-20 10:40:31

In the argument, the Promofoods draws a conclusion that the cans of tuna did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. The argument is mainly based on a test conducted by the chemists from Promofoods, which shows that five of eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, were not found in any of the tested cans. However, although the conclusion sounds quite reasonable at first thought, yet a series of logical flaws may undermine the argument.

First of all, the test conducted by the chemists from Promofoods might be problematic. Firstly, whether the samples are representative enough is questionable. It is entirely possible that these eight million cans are in the same region but the numerous consumers’ complaint of dizziness and nausea might be in other regions. Furthermore, we have no sign of the total number of this kind of cans and have a good reason to doubt whether the eight million cans still constitute an insufficiently small sample. Besides, the chemists from Promofoods might not honest enough to make an objective and impartial test because of their close relationship with the Promofoods. Without better evidence to support the test, the arguer cannot convine me to accept his conclusion.

In addition, even if the test is reliable, the arguer unfairly assumes that there are only eight chemicals to have the possibility to cause symptoms of dizziness and nausea. However, there is no guarantee that this is the case, nor does the arguer provide any evidence to substantiate the assumption. It is highly possible that other chemicals apart from the eight ones might also be responsible for symptoms of dizziness and nausea. Without considering and ruling out other possible chemicals, the arguer cannot draw any firm conclusion.

Last but not least, the arguer fails to prove that other three chemicals are not the reason for dizziness and nausea. However, the arguer fails to provide any evidence to solidify the assumption. It is likely that although the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods, the amount of them is so small that it is not large enough to cause dizziness and nausea. Perhaps, the amount of the three chemicals in cans of Promofoods might be extremely large, so it is dangerous to cause dizziness and nausea.

To sum up, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to ask for an impartial institution to test again, and to rule out other suspected chemicals, which are also likely to cause dizziness and nausea.