【喜洋洋杀G大队】七月三号作业by jahson

jahsonUID: 2628322

argu 38
开头
感冒有可能不是缺席得原因
鱼与感冒不构成因果
不一定是鱼油有益
结尾

In this analysis, the author makes a recommendation of the daily use of lchthaid which is derived from fish oil in order to reduce absenteeism in schools and workplaces. In order to make the conclusion persuasive the arguer points out that it is colds that are the reason most frequently accounts for the absence from school and work. Additionally he cites a study report claiming that people of East Meria where fish consumption is very high suffer fewer colds. The conclusion seems reasonable at the first sight, however several critical flaws in the line of reasoning seriously undermines the argument.
First of all, the arguer fails to convince us most absenteeism result from colds in absence of statistic evidence. Colds are the reason given but there is a great chance that colds are just a excuse. Moreover, several other factors such as traffic without convenience that lead to the absence as well are neglected by the author. Without ruling out these possibilities the author's assertion is problematic.
Another problem underlying the reasoning is that actually the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the high fish consumption and fewer colds. From the facts we can infer nothing more than that there may exist some correlation between the two facts. Only after a comprehensive research can we figure out cause or causes of the fewer colds, hence the assertion that eating fish contributes to keeping oneself away from cold at this stage is premature. Or we should take all possibilities into account, including that the living habits of the residents of East Meria ensure them a good health condition.
A third problem is that even if fewer colds result from eating more fish, what nutrient in fish help to keeping colds away is still unknown. It is not necessarily the case that lchthaid is efficient. Little concrete evidence about the lchthaid is presented, and therefore whether the daily use of lchithaid will work is still open to doubt.
In conclusion, the prediction that the daily use of lchthaid will help prevent colds and lower absenteeism is still in lack of solid ground because of the vulnerable reasoning. To strengthen the argument the author should provide more evidence about the causal relationship between fish consumption and protecting from colds, and prove that colds are the actual reason most frequently leads to absence from school and work. Knowing more about the character of lchthaid will be useful in better evaluating the argument.

dingyi0311UID: 2627919

In this analysis, the author makes a recommendation of the daily use of lchthaid which is derived from fish oil in order to reduce absenteeism in schools and workplaces. In order (两个in order to 读着不爽啊)to make the conclusion persuasive，（要加个逗号吧） the arguer points out that it is colds that are the reason（感觉删了简洁些吧） most frequently accounts for the absence from school and work（workplace）. Additionally，（这里有个逗号） he cites a study report claiming that people of East Meria where fish consumption is very high suffer fewer colds. The conclusion seems reasonable at the first sight, however several critical flaws in the line of reasoning seriously undermines the argument.
First of all, the arguer fails to convince us most absenteeism result from colds in absence of statistic evidence. Colds are the reason given but there is a great chance that colds are just a（an） excuse. Moreover, several other factors such as traffic without convenience that lead to the absence as well are neglected by the author. Without ruling out these possibilities the author's assertion is problematic.（觉得这里最后一个堵车的例子不能反驳什么啊）
Another problem underlying（是undermine？） the reasoning is that actually the arguer actually （换个位子）fails to establish a causal relationship between the high fish consumption and fewer colds. From the facts we can infer nothing more than that there may exist some correlation between the two facts（没看懂啊是不是rather than写成了more than了？）. Only after a comprehensive research can we figure out cause or causes of the fewer colds, hence the assertion that eating fish contributes to keeping oneself away from cold at this stage is premature. Or we should take all possibilities into account, including that the living habits of the residents of East Meria ensure them a good health condition.（这一段写的好像不是很有说服力）
A third problem is that even if fewer colds result from eating more fish, what nutrient in fish help to keeping colds away is still unknown. It is not necessarily the case that lchthaid is efficient. Little concrete evidence about the lchthaid is presented, and therefore whether the daily use of lchithaid will work is still open to doubt.
In conclusion, the prediction that the daily use of lchthaid will help prevent colds and lower absenteeism is still in lack of solid ground because of the vulnerable（觉得这个词用的好像不恰当） reasoning. To strengthen the argument the author should provide more evidence about the causal relationship between fish consumption and protecting from colds, and prove that colds are the actual reason most frequently leads to absence from school and work. Knowing more about the character of lchthaid will be useful in better evaluating the argument.

有改的不是很对的地方请见谅~