ARGUMENT187 =August Rush=小组 by KevinSpacey

KevinSpaceyUID: 2645771

TOPIC: ARGUMENT187 - The following appeared as part of an article in a health magazine.

"A new discovery warrants a drastic change in the diets of people living in the United States. Two scientists have recently suggested that omega -3 fatty acids (found in some fish and fish oils) play a key role in mental health. Our ancestors, who ate less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat, including omega -3 fatty acids, were much less likely to suffer from depression than we are today. Moreover, modern societies-such as those in Japan and Taiwan-that consume large quantities of fish report depression rates lower than that in the United States. Given this link between omega -3 fatty acids and depression, it is important for all people in the United States to increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression."

KevinSpaceyUID: 2645771

WORDS: 587
TIME: 00:58:07
DATE: 2009/8/8 11:51:27

The notion that eating fish can prevent depression seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, depression has become a severe mental problem in the modern society. However, the conclusion that all people in the US should increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression may mask other causes of depression and may influence the food structure of diet and even the food supply market.

It is mentioned in the argument that there are two scientists have recently suggested that omega-3 fatty acids play a key role in mental health. Yet, the argument contains no evidence to support this science discovery. What about the views of other scientists about this discovery? Has this discovery been confirmed by other laboratories among the nation? If not, this suggestion can only be a hypothesis other than a theory. Thus, the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids for mental health is skeptical.

The argument assumes that that ancient people were much less likely to suffer from depression than present people is because they ate more omega-3 fatty acids than we do. But the arguer fails to consider other possible alternatives to the reasons why the contemporary people are much more likely to suffer from depression. Such alternatives may include the fact that the contemporary people and ancient people are living at two totally different circumstances. Given that the fast-paced society today, contemporary people are under much more stress than before: they need to devote themselves to work to retain their jobs, spent more time to maintain the family and take care of the youngsters and old peoples of family, and barely feel satisfied. The depression of modern people may caused by the social stress regardless of the deficiency of omega-3 fatty acids.

The arguer also does not figure out the real reason why people at Japan and Taiwan report depression rates lower than that in the US. The arguer assumes the consumption of fish decides the depression rate. Unfortunately, this is often not the case. It is entirely possible that the stress of work of Japan and Taiwan is less intense than that of the US. The stress of work may be a great role in mental health. Perhaps the regional facts influence the depression rate. Maybe Asian people are less likely to suffer mental disease.

Finally, even if the omega-3 fatty acids indeed have relationship with depression and eating more fish can decrease depression rate, the arguer fails to convince me that it is necessary for all people of the US to increase their consumption of fish. It is obviously that not all people of modern society will suffer depression. Actually, only a small proportion of them will. For those who never feel depression, do they need to buy more fish? There are also many other methods which are more efficient than fish that can prevent depression, like psychological counseling. These methods have been carrying out for so long time that they have already been proved to be effective. The feasibility of this conclusion is also skeptical. Contemporary people often do not have much time to cook a fish which is just the reason why they tend to eat more fast food than before.

In sum, the argument for eating more fish may benefit the people from some kind of ailments. Before conclusions that all people in the US should increase their consumption of fish, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits is needed. After all, it may not be effective and feasible for everyone.

wttcsnUID: 2635942

写的蛮好的 第一次进论坛看文章

KevinSpaceyUID: 2645771

哈，多谢鼓励！一个多小时才写成的，还要继续努力。你也加油！
3# wttcsn