Argument38【07-10G Superstar大帖】第12次作业 by Huaxinluobo

huaxinluoboUID: 2326780

This argument suggests that in order to prevent colds and absenteeism, a nutritional supplement derived form fish oil should be used everyday. To support, the memo cites facts of nearby East Meria(EM), and draws a analogy between EM and West Meria(WM). However, after scrutiny I find it suffers from a few flaws.

First, the memo assume that high consumption is the reason why people in EM only visit doctor for treatment of colds only one or two times, but fails to prove it. Since not enough data is given, it is not certain that people in EM seldom catch colds. It is possible that they catch clods frequently but for some consideration like high cost, busy work, they chose not to see doctor, if it is the case, then the conclusion is diminished. Moreover, even if residents in EM really seldom catch colds, it is unfair to attribute it to the high consumption of fish because no direct evidence is shown to prove it. Perhaps whether temperature is higher than WM, perhaps people do more exercise and so have a better health condition. Without ruling out these possibilities, it is unjustifiable to assume that consumption of fish can reduce the chance of catching colds.

Secondly, the memo draws a false similarity between taking Ichthaid and eating fish. Even fish can contribute to less colds, the memo does not show which elements are effective and whether Ichthaid contains these elements. It is entirely possible that Ichthaid does not contain the substance that do good to health, or only contain a few but not all, or maybe other substance it contains may do harm to health. Thus, unless direct evidence is given to justify that taking Ichthaid have same effect as eating fish, the conclusion is unconvincing.

Finally, even if Ichthaid can actually reduce the chance of catching colds, whether the absenteeism can be decreased is still uncertain, for it is not sure that colds are the really reason roe absences from school and work. Perhaps clods is only a excuse for the absences, in which case even if colds are reduced, other reasons may come out and absenteeism may not decline. In order to make the conclusion more convincing , the writer need to prove that cold is in fact the primary reason why absenteeism happens.   

To sum up, the memo is problematic for a few flaws. To better support it the writer should give more evidence to prove that colds cause most absences and Ichthaid can effectively reduce the colds.

[ 本帖最后由 huaxinluobo 于 2007-6-21 19:16 编辑 ]

学野UID: 2155973

This argument suggests that in order to prevent colds and absenteeism, a nutritional supplement derived form fish oil should be used everyday. To support, the memo cites facts of nearby East Meria(EM), and draws a analogy between EM and West Meria(WM). However, after scrutiny I find it suffers from a few flaws.

First, the memo assume that high consumption is the reason why people in EM only visit doctor for treatment of colds only one or two times, but fails to prove it. Since not enough data is given, it is not certain uncertain that people in EM seldom catch colds. It is possible that they catch clods frequently but for some consideration like high cost, busy work, they chose not to see doctor,好像时态不一致阿 if it is the case, then the conclusion is diminished.感觉diminish是减小变少修饰conclusion不合适吧,个人意见 Moreover, even if residents in EM really seldom catch colds, it is unfair to attribute it to the high consumption of fish because no direct evidence is shown to prove it. Perhaps whether temperature is higher than ( that in)WM, perhaps people do more exercise and so (thus)  have a better health condition. Without ruling out these possibilities, it is unjustifiable to assume that consumption of fish can reduce the chance of catching colds.

Secondly, the memo draws a false similarity between taking Ichthaid and eating fish. Even (if)fish can contribute to less colds, the memo does not show which elements are effective and whether Ichthaid contains these elements. It is entirely possible that Ichthaid does not contain the substance that do good to health, or only contain a few but not all, or maybe other substance it contains may与前面maybe重复 do harm to health. Thus, unless direct evidence is given to justify that taking Ichthaid have same effect as eating fish, the conclusion is unconvincing.

Finally, even if Ichthaid can actually reduce the chance of catching colds, whether the absenteeism can be decreased is still uncertain, for it is not sure that colds are the really reason roe absences from school and work. Perhaps clods is only a excuse for the absences, in which case even if colds are reduced, other reasons may come out and absenteeism may not decline. In order to make the conclusion more convincing , the writer need to prove that cold is in fact the primary reason why absenteeism happens.   

To sum up, the memo is problematic for a few flaws. To better support it the writer should give more evidence to prove that colds cause most absences and Ichthaid can effectively reduce the colds.
没什么说的，逻辑清晰，主次分明，攻击到位，除了一些特别小的地方上面都有指出
其他真的没什么可挑的~赞一个~