Argument165 永不言弃第十四次作业 by stgzhao 7#

stgzhaoUID: 2583165

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: 485          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2009-2-21 11:04:40

1. 检测是由Promofoods公司内部进行的，不具有权威性而且有徇私舞弊的嫌疑。
2. 报告只涉及了8种常见物，对其他可能造成健康危害的没有提及。
3. 检测的范围是否符合统计学要求没有说明。
4. 3种检出物在其他罐头食品里面也存在，但是含量是否相同没有说明。

Promofoods draws a conclusion that their cans of tuna have no health risk by involving a test conducted by their own chemists. The result of the test is that of the all eight kinds of chemicals which is most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea only three kinds have been found while the three kinds are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods. The argument is well-presented, but not well-reasoned. There are some intermediate steps that one could take before jumping to the conclusion.

To begin with, the test which Promofoods uses to clarify its innocence is conducted by chemists from Promofoods itself, which is suspect to be of no authority. Such test should be carried out by some agency supervised by the relevant department of the government in order to be convincing, otherwise it is natural for the consumers to question whether there is some kinds of skulduggery or information being optional revealed, which, will be interpellated below. In one word, the test itself is not convincing at all due to the operators' lack of authority.

Even if the test is impartial, there is still much to think over. The argument fails to take other possible alternatives into consideration. Such alternatives may include some chemicals that have not been referred in the report of the test. It is true that only three of the eight most commonly blamed chemicals have been found out. What about other chemicals that are rarely appear in other kinds of canned foods? Obviously the argument provides nothing about them. Perhaps it is some kinds of chemicals not being included in the common eight that cause the dizziness and nausea. Lack of such information the test result is unpersuasive, and hence causes the chemists who conduct the test to be interpellated for skulduggery.

Besides, whether the test is accord with statistical standard is remain unproved. The argument provides no information to prove that the "tested cans" is of a number large enough to represent the condition of all the recalled cans comprehensively. Lack of such information it is entirely possible that only the tested cans are coincident with the result while others are not.

Finally, the argument indicates that three chemicals found out can also be found out in all other kinds of canned foods. However, the argument fails to provide the amount of the three chemicals found in the canned foods. Perhaps the amount is extremely low in other kinds of canned foods while it is far over the standard amount in Promofoods' cans of tuna. If so, it may because of the high amount of the chemicals that the cans cause the consumer complaint of dizziness and nausea.

In sum, the test which the conclusion that Promofoods' cans do not contain chemicals that posed a health risk is based on is unconvincing due to several flaws.  Before any final conclusion is made, the consumers should evaluate all possible alternatives such as other chemicals which can cause dizziness and nausea for the canned foods. The exact amount contained in Promofoods' canned foods is also needed. In addition, let the test conducted by a more authoritative agency is a necessary factor as well.

paooozhixia163UID: 2588527

我觉得2+4可以合在一起作为第一段~