Argument187 【0806G-Sunbird小组】Norman第1次作业

norman518UID: 188582

"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."
WORDS: 303          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-11-9
Modify: 687

In this article, based on the assumption that there is a certain link of cause and effect between omega-3 fatty acids and depression, the author suggests that all people in the United States should promote their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression. To strengthen his recommendation, the author cites a new discovery and two scientists' suggestion. Though careful reflection, it is clear that for the author to make a series of fallacies from premise to reasoning.

Above all, in this article, the author definitely point out that saturated and polyunsaturated fat include omega -3 fatty acids playing a key role in mental health, but this is no evidence to illuminate that omega-3 fatty acids found in some fish and fish oils is different form those omega-3 fatty acids found in saturated and polyunsaturated fat. If omega-3 fatty acids found in fish is the same---at least in the same function and ingredient--of that found in saturated fat, the author's suggestion seems irrational until he can provide evidence to express that omega-3 fatty acids found in fish is special to deal with expression.

What is more, the two analogies mentioned in the article can guarantee the relationship between omega -3 fatty acids and depression to be relative at best, rather than cause-and-effect as the premise of his suggestion. It is no meaning for the author only to compare the custom in the diets between our ancestors and modern people. Except for the consumption of saturated fat, there are many other factors resulted in the depression of modern American at a high rate. As we know modern society is distinct from our grandfather’s world whether in the degree of civilization or in life style, whether in the marriage or in the occupation. According to the views of modern medicine and psychology, the fatal factors of individual depression result from unemployment, divorcement and unstable society. Maybe the well habits in the diets will help to maintain mental health, but only in terms of the author’s statements of the less saturated fat, the less depression, we cannot make a reasonable ratiocination of the more consumption of ship, the more healthy. The same is true to another analogy between Japan (or Taiwan) and the United States, confined with in a series of narrow inland, it is highly likely that inhabitants in Japan or Taiwan could encounter less difficulties and suppression to deal with, such as harmonious fellowship, racial conflict, sexual discrimination and so on. It is especially true that the color bar leads to the American-Africa to have unsatisfactory and restrained emotions, which inevitably results in the higher black criminal rates in the United States. If the author cannot provide more evidences to rule out all above possibilities, his premise seems to unconvincing, let alone to his recommendation.

Lastly, even if the author’s precondition is rational, it is presumptuous for his to recommend that all people in the United States should increase consumption of fish in order to decrease depression according to the assumption of the more fish, the less depression. It is likely possible that those people with less depression have the more consumption of fish, as well as have healthy life style and habits, such as enjoying more exercises, prohibiting smoking and alcohol, etc. In any way, the author’s recommendation is arbitrary to call for all people abiding by his suggestion, how about those who are born with allergy to fish? How about those whose religion makes the fish as their idol---this is especially popular among gelong, as the adherents of Dalailama. If the author cannot bring forward executable strategy to cure those allergic patients and to persuade those adherents, the author should rectify his recommendation at least.

In sum, the author’s suggestion is full of logical flaws from premise to reasoning. To strengthen it, the author should provide more evidences to rule out those alternative factors that could destroy the cause and effect between fish and depression. To make his suggestion more convincible, the author should modify his suggestion, or take on practical measures to cure allergy and persuade adherents to give away their faith.

[ 本帖最后由 norman518 于 2007-11-11 18:26 编辑 ]