Argument187【0806G-Sunbird小组】第1次作业

edith_sleepingUID: 2368536

=====================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."

================================================================^

正文：
  
  The notion that more omegas lead to less depression seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, two scientists have recently suggested that the omegas-3 fatty acids play a key role in mental health. However, the idea that more omegas lead to less depression may mask over causes of depression and inspire people to over invest financially in omega.
  
  Firstly, as mentioned in the argument, the link between omega and depression conclude from a new discovery and suggestion of the two scientists. But the arguer hasn’t mentioned further information about the discovery which we cannot ensure the accuracy of it, and hasn’t raised the details of the scientists who put forward the suggestion. This new discovery may hasn’t finished yet or this new discovery maybe not scientific and actuate. So this link between omega and depression is not persuading enough for the notion.
  
  Secondly, The argument above is weakened by the thought that our ancestors suffered from less depression was singly because of eating less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat, compared to us. The arguer ignores the other influences that reduce the depression of our ancestors: Our ancient people suffered less pressure than we are today. They lived in the environment which is less developed and is not as competed as the current society. They focused all their attention to their survivals and didn’t have the time and energy to feel depression.

  Thirdly, the report which takes Japan and Taiwan as examples also lacks in persuasion to the reader. The arguer partly thinks that the lower rates in Japan and Taiwan are the contribution of omegas. The lower rates also own to the influence of comfortable environment, scientific exercise and so on.
  
  Finally, the arguer blindly suggests that all people in United States should increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression. The arguer ignore the difference among Americans that some of them may really lack of the omegas, but to the contrary, some may have enough even over omegas as eating too much fishes. And what is worse, it inspires people to over invest financially in omega.

  The argument for based on the research and suggestion of the two scientists   could not provide that more omegas absolutely lead to less depression. Before conclusion about the link between omegas and depression, however, a more complete understanding of the relation of two is needed. After all, a false confidence in blindly eating more omegas could be just dangerous.

[ 本帖最后由 edith_sleeping 于 2007-11-3 03:00 编辑 ]

zxxx2972UID: 2367399

The notion that more omegas lead to less depression seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, two scientists have recently suggested that the omegas-3 fatty acids play a key role in mental health. However, the idea that more omegas lead to less depression may mask over causes of depression and inspire people to over invest financially in omega.    Firstly, as mentioned in the argument, the link between omega and depression conclude (was concluded) from a new discovery and suggestion of the two scientists. But the arguer hasn’t mentioned further information about the discovery which(so that ,又是which还有it,这个从句没写对) we cannot ensure the accuracy of it, and hasn’t raised(provided) the details of the scientists who put forward(to) the suggestion. This new discovery may hasn’t finished yet or this new discovery maybe not scientific and actuate. So this link between omega and depression is not persuading enough for the notion.     Secondly, The argument above is weakened by the thought that our ancestors suffered from less depression was singly (was 后不能只接because of 这种副词)because of eating less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat, compared to（comparing with） us. (这个从句写的问题很多)The arguer ignores the other influences that reduce the depression of our ancestors: Our ancient people suffered less pressure than we are today. They lived in the environment which is less developed and is not as competed（competitive） as the current society. They focused(paid) all their attention to their survivals and didn’t have the time and energy to feel depression.  Thirdly, the report which takes Japan and Taiwan as examples also lacks in persuasion to the reader. The arguer partly thinks that the lower rates in Japan and Taiwan are the contribution of omegas. The lower rates also own to the influence of comfortable environment, scientific exercise and so on.     Finally, the arguer blindly suggests that all people in United States should increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression. The arguer ignore the difference among Americans that some of them may really lack of(不用of, be lack of) the omegas, but to the contrary, some may have enough even over omegas as eating too much fishes. And what is worse, it inspires people to over invest financially in omega.  The argument for based on the research and suggestion of the two scientists   could not provide that more omegas absolutely lead to less depression. Before conclusion about the link between omegas and depression, however, a more complete understanding of the relation of two is needed. After all, a false confidence in blindly eating more omegas could be just dangerous
总体上逻辑错误都找到了，比你的ISSUE写的好，个人觉得。但是在基本语法上还是容易犯错。

Bellona0428UID: 2418798

我给你改了~~结果学校网速慢 ~~~没传上去 ~~~~:(