argument38 [Shining Sep] 作文组 第一天作业

flycc28UID: 2164453

TOPIC: ARGUMENT38 - The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.

"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."
WORDS: 436          TIME: 0:30:00 +30         DATE: 2006-8-14

Merely based on two unwarranted assumptions that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent cold and colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work. To substantiate, the arguer points out a study, it may seems reasonable on the surface, we, however, find that both the assumptions and evidence are untenable as it stands.

A threshold assumption in this argument upon which the arguer relies is that eating large amount of fish can prevent colds. Unfortunately, the study reports which is too vague cannot supports it. On one hand, there are not cause-and-effect correlation between the consumption of fish and the times of people visiting to the doctors. Chance is that, fish is bought by enterprise for processing fish product rather than consumed by people directly. Similarly, other alternative explanations may result in the high consumption of fish. On the other hand, the small amount of times people go to doctors does not equal to they seldom suffer from colds. In case that the people, who caught colds after eating substantial amount of fish, do not go to see doctors for the hospital is far from their places, or the bad climate, or even lacking of money. Hence, in absence of other causes may account for the small amount of times, we cannot draw a conclusion that people can prevent colds by eating fish.


Another assumption that colds are the most important factor for the absences from school and work is aslo open to doubt. Consider, if the group of workers and students who are often absent  are a group of lazy men, they usually get up later due to their bad habit and ignorance of the rules, they will still absent regardless of getting colds.
Therefore, other alternatives may be responsible for the absences from word and school.

Even if the above assumptions are both credible, the recommendation of using Ichthaid daily is unpersuasive. Although Ichthaid derive from fish oil may be nutritional to human being, it possibly has little effect on preventing colds, while other parts of fish rather than fish oil will benefit to people on colds defending.


At last, the study report the arguer cited may weakens the argument, in absence of when, where and how the study was conducted, the validity of the study is open to doubt.

In sum, the argument seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more statistical information of the study and the real causes of small amount of people visit doctor for colds and the absences from work and school.

[ 本帖最后由 flycc28 于 2006-8-14 21:57 编辑 ]

xuxinyunUID: 2198143

argument38 [Shining Sep] 作文组 第一天作业

TOPIC: ARGUMENT38 - The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.

"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."
WORDS: 436          TIME: 0:30:00 +30         DATE: 2006-8-14

Merely based on two unwarranted assumptions that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent cold and colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work. （少主语？这句不是一个全句啊）To substantiate, the arguer points out a study, it may seems （seem） reasonable on the surface, we, however, find that both the assumptions and evidence are untenable as it stands.

A threshold assumption in this argument upon which the arguer relies is that eating large amount of fish can prevent colds. Unfortunately, the study reports(the report of the study) which is too vague cannot supports(support) it. On one hand, there are(is) not cause-and-effect correlation between the consumption of fish and the times of people visiting to(没有to) the doctors. Chance is that, fish is bought by enterprise for processing fish product rather than consumed by people directly. Similarly, other alternative explanations may result in the high consumption of fish. On the other hand, the small amount of times people go to doctors does not equal to they seldom suffer from colds. In case that the people, who caught colds after eating substantial amount of fish, do not go to see doctors for the hospital is far from their places, or the bad climate, or even lacking of money. Hence, in absence of other causes may account for the small amount of times, we cannot draw a conclusion that people can prevent colds by eating fish.


Another assumption that colds are the most important factor for the absences from school and work is also(also) open to doubt. Consider, if the group of workers and students who are often absent  are a group of lazy men, they usually get up later due to their bad habit and ignorance of the rules, they will still absent regardless of getting colds.
Therefore, other alternatives may be responsible for the absences from word and school.

Even if the above assumptions are both credible, the recommendation of using Ichthaid daily is unpersuasive. Although Ichthaid derive from fish oil(deriving from fish oil) may be nutritional to human being, it possibly has little effect on preventing colds, while other parts of fish rather than fish oil will benefit to people on colds defending.


At last, the study report the arguer cited may weakens the argument, in absence of when, where and how the study was conducted, the validity of the study is open to doubt.

In sum, the argument seems logical at first,（it）has several flaws as discussed above. (这小半举少了主语) To better evaluate the argument, we would need more statistical information of the study and the real causes of small amount of people visit(visiting) doctor for colds and the absences from work and school.

觉得写得蛮好啊，句子啊用的都挺丰富的，分析得也有条理。主要毛病就是一些句子的完整性有时候没注意到，还有就是使用的时候再流畅点就好了。

[ 本帖最后由 xuxinyun 于 2006-8-15 09:31 编辑 ]

flycc28UID: 2164453

汗...这么多语法错误...老毛病了  下次写了要放word里过一遍...

再碰见语法错误使劲砸..

flycc28UID: 2164453

Merely based on two unwarranted assumptions that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent cold and colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, the arguer recommends the daily use of Ichthaid. To substantiate, the arguer points out a study, it may seems reasonable on the surface, we, however, find that both the assumptions and evidence are untenable as it stands.

A threshold assumption in this argument upon which the arguer relies is that eating large amount of fish can prevent colds. Unfortunately, the reports of the study which is too vague cannot support it. On one hand, there are not cause-and-effect correlation between the amount of consumption of fish and the times of people visiting the doctors. Chance is that, fish is bought by enterprise for processing fish product rather than consumed by people directly. Similarly, other alternative explanations may result in the high consumption of fish. On the other hand, the small amount of times people go to doctors does not equal to they seldom suffer from colds. In case that the people, who caught colds after eating substantial amount of fish, do not go to see doctors for the hospital is far from their places, or the bad climate, or even lacking of money. Hence, in absence of other causes may account for the small amount of times, we cannot draw a conclusion that people can prevent colds by eating fish.


Another assumption that cold is the most important factor for the absences from school and work is also open to doubt. Consider, if the group of workers and students who are often absent are a group of lazy men, they usually get up later due to their bad habit and ignorance of the rules. They will be still absent regardless of suffering colds. Therefore, other alternatives may be responsible for the absences from work and school.

Even if the above assumptions are both credible, the recommendation of using Ichthaid daily is unpersuasive. Although Ichthaid deriving from fish oil may be nutritional to human being, it possibly has little effect on preventing colds, while other parts of fish rather than fish oil will benefit people on colds defending.


At last, the study report the arguer cited may weakens the argument, in absence of when, where and how the study was conducted, the validity of the study is open to doubt.

In sum, the argument seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more statistical information of the study and the real causes of small amount of people visiting doctor for colds and the absences from work and school.