[NTL] 第十六次作业 argument 154 by tiger

wjldmjUID: 2632023

In this argument, the author suggests that doctors should advise their patients to hold vigorous outdoor exercise every day instead of moderate fitness. To support his idea, the author cites a study researched upon 500 middle-aged men from different fields, showing that the people who had a vigorous outdoor exercise almost every day had a better longevity than that of mildly exercises by once or twice a week. However, this argument is suffering from lacking of enough evidence as well as fallacies in logical thinking, so it falls to convince.

To begin with, even one side there were the part of people of the subjects persisting on doing frequency and drastic exercise every day, and the other side, these people finally had a better situation of health and longevity, the argument still has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the latter culmination is just because of the former of that kind of exercise directly. It seems very possible that the majority of the people who enjoyed vigorous outdoor exercise every day had a better health already before the research of fitness than that of the subjects who did not intend to have drastic exercise every day, but a milder one due to their fitness situation. Lacking details and direct evidence to show that the frequency vigorous outdoor exercise truly has positive influence to fitness of people, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands.

Further more, this argument is suffering from at least two serious fallacies in reasoning. Firstly, only two pattern of exercises are compared in the study for drawing the final conclusion that doctors should recommend their patients of frequency vigorous exercise. However, the author seems to ignored that there are also other two kind of exercise type, one is frequency and mild exercise, and the other one is vigorous exercise but by long period every time, compared to the two extreme types in this argument. Without making a canny comparison and analysis of all these four patterns of exercises, the author cannot confidently conclude to his suggestion to doctors.

Secondly, the patients are totally different group of characters compared to the subjects in the study, namely even assuming that the vigorous outdoor exercise are most suitable for common people to keep a better health, but this kind of exercise may not bring the same effect to patients who have various of indisposed fitness, or more seriously, the drastic exercise may cause counteracting or compromising to the health and fitness of the patients. For example, the patients of hypertension and the patients of diabetes are obvious not suitable for vigorous exercise too much, sometimes it will even cause dangerous to their lives. And referring to the people suffering a fracture, it is absurd to compel them to run outdoor. So the argument is arbitrary here to draw the conclusion from the common people to the patients here, unwarranted due to lacking of discreet analysis.

To sum up, due to the flaws listed above, the argument is seriously weakened and unreliable. To strengthen it, the author should provide direct evidence to show that what kind of the four type of exercises, frequency and vigorous, frequency and mild, vigorous but of less frequency, and mild by less times every week, are most suitable to patients not healthy people.

manioUID: 2581962

a~~