Argument158 【challenge yourself小组】第一次作业

xomaeUID：2468629

Argument158.
The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites. A total of five sites and 300 people were examined. The study revealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. Furthermore, although it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Therefore, the council is pleased to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. We see no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.




In this argument, the author claims that current system of garbage doesn't harm to residents’s health. In order to support his conclusion, the author cites a recent survey in favor of his claim, he also lists a myriad of assumptions to strengthen this argument. However, at first glance of this argument, it seems somewhat convincing, but further reflections reveals that it is a poor one, from my personal perspective, this argument suffers from three logical flaws.

First of all, the survey cited in the argument is too vague to be meaningful. unless the author sampled a sufficient number of the residents and ensure these people are representativeness, the argument is ungrounded. It is possible that these five sites in the survey are far from downtown, the circumstances around them and conditions of people are quiet different with other sites. three hundred investigator's responses can not persuade me either, the argument do not inform us how many people around each of the site, perhaps, the one in which conditions are less harmful indagated two hundred and ninety six residents, other cites which are more harmful indagated only four.

In addition, the author points that the rashes are unexplained, in this case, how does he conduces that there is a small statistical correlation? Ever assumption should rely on grounded reasons and accurate evidence, lack the information that rashes are conduced by other factors, the author can not conclude his claim hurriedly, perhaps, garbage is just the cause of rashes. The  information "it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of rushes" should be the best evidence to support that garbage is the cause of rashes, if this is not the case, then how does these residents suffers higher incidents? The author does not tell us.

Finally, the author assumes too hastily that the size of the garbage cites has little relation with people's health Common science tells me that if a garbage cite will emit a harmful gas, then the bigger it will expand, the more harmful gas will be. moreover, even this one has contradiction with the information the author give above in the, if garbage cites has little relation with people's health the author infers in the argument above, then why does the author emphasize the size of the cites has little relation with people's health? this turn in the course of events in the argument brings a strong evidence that garbage is harmful to our body.

To sum up, the author fails to lend strong support to what he maintains, even if he cites a absurd survey, after he give some groundless reasons, this argument suffers from several logical flaws deeply. To make the argument more convincing, the author should provide more information about the survey. Additionally, he should indagate whether garbage cites is harmful. therefore, if the argument contains these given factors, it will be more acceptable



[ 本帖最后由 xomae 于 2008-7-24 19:50 编辑 ]

linyunfUID：2405027

先在word里改到没下划线。

xomaeUID：2468629

谢谢提醒啊~很多个错误 已经改正了 下次记得了

linyunfUID：2405027

In this argument, the author claims that current system of garbage doesn't harm to residents’s health. In order to support his conclusion, the author cites a recent survey in favor of his claim, he also lists a myriad of assumptions to strengthen this argument. However, at first glance of this argument, it seems somewhat convincing, but further reflections reveals（reveal） that it is a poor one, from my personal perspective（这用不着，当然是自己的观点了）, this argument suffers from three logical flaws.
First of all, the survey cited in the argument is too vague to be meaningful. unless the author sampled a sufficient number of the residents and ensure these people are representativeness, the argument is ungrounded. It is possible that these five sites in the survey are far from downtown, the circumstances around them and conditions of people are quiet different with other sites. three hundred investigator's responses can not persuade me either, the argument do not inform us how many people around each of the site, perhaps, the one in which conditions are less harmful indagated two hundred and ninety six residents, other cites which are more harmful indagated only four.（理由是理由，不过有点牵强）

In addition, the author points（out） that the rashes are unexplained, in this case, how does he conduces that there is a small statistical correlation? Ever assumption should rely on grounded reasons and accurate evidence, lack the information that rashes are conduced by other factors, the author can not conclude his claim hurriedly, perhaps, garbage is just the cause of rashes. The  information "it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of rushes" should be the best evidence to support that garbage is the cause of rashes, if this is not the case, then how does these residents suffers higher incidents? The author does not tell us.

Finally, the author assumes too hastily that the size of the garbage cites has little relation with people's health Common science tells me that if a garbage cite will emit a harmful gas, then the bigger it will expand, the more harmful gas will be. moreover, even this one has contradiction with the information the author give above in the, if garbage cites has little relation with people's health the author infers in the argument above, then why does the author emphasize the size of the cites has little relation with people's health? this turn in the course of events in the argument brings a strong evidence that garbage is harmful to our body.（size的大小问题在前一段说过了）

To sum up, the author fails to lend strong support to what he maintains, even if he cites a absurd survey（句子不通）, after he give some groundless reasons, this argument suffers from several logical flaws deeply. To make the argument more convincing, the author should provide more information about the survey. Additionally, he should indagate whether garbage cites is harmful. therefore, if the argument contains these given factors, it will be more acceptable

springelfUID：2458536

Argument158.

In this argument, the author claims that current system of garbage doesn't harm to residents’s(residents’ 注意哈，这可是低级错误~) health. In order to support his conclusion, the author cites a recent survey in favor of his claim; he also lists a myriad of assumptions to strengthen this argument. However, at first glance of this argument, it seems somewhat convincing, but further reflections reveals that it is a poor one, from my personal perspective, this argument suffers from three logical flaws.
(good start~)

First of all, the survey cited in the argument is too vague to be meaningful. Unless the author sampled a sufficient number of the residents and ensure (ensured) these people are representativeness (representative就可以了吧，这个是形容词), the argument is ungrounded.（你想说的是除非作者能证明……否则就……。Unless 后面不跟or可以直接用吗？我不太确定~） It is possible that these five sites in the survey are far from downtown,（这句有点牵强了，不要这句的话后面说的还比较顺） the circumstances around them and conditions of people are quiet different with other sites. three hundred investigator's responses can not persuade me either, the argument do not inform us how many people around each of the site, perhaps, the one in which conditions are less harmful indagated two hundred and ninety six residents, other cites which are more harmful indagated only four.(这个数学的东东没有看懂~然后，每段最后最好有个小结论，so，therefore，in short，in sum之类的，首位呼应一下)

In addition, the author points (out) that (the cause of) the rashes are unexplained, in this case, how does he conduces that there is a small statistical correlation?(这句没看懂) Ever assumption should rely on grounded reasons and accurate evidence, lack the information that rashes are conduced by other factors, the author can not conclude his claim （which claim？他有很多claim，你现在在驳哪一个？） hurriedly, perhaps, garbage is just the cause of rashes. The  information "it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of rushes(rashes)" should be the best evidence to support that garbage is the cause of rashes, if this is not the case, then how does these residents suffers higher incidents? The author does not tell us.
(这段写的不好，逻辑很混乱，然后在一段里驳了很多东西，都没有说清楚。你先想说，这个皮疹的病因本来就是无法解释的，没有说明这个皮疹是其他因素引起的，就不能排除是垃圾引起的对吧？但是这个没有说清楚。然后你又说了，最大垃圾场旁边的人皮疹发病率要更高些这个事实已经说明了有关系。这个的话，我觉得也是一个谬论，虽然他说的不对，但是你考虑也不周全。那如果是因为偶然因素呢？或者这个最大的垃圾场附近刚好有个什么化工厂之类的，皮疹是由于化工厂引起的呢？所以还是换个说法比较好~)

Finally, the author assumes too hastily that the size of the garbage cites has little relation with people's health. Common science tells me (us, 把大家都拉进来会比你一个人有说服力)that if a garbage cite will emit a harmful gas, then the bigger it will expand, the more harmful gas will be.（这个说服不了我） moreover, even this one has contradiction with the information the author give above in the, if garbage cites has little relation with people's health the author infers in the argument above, then why does the author emphasize the size of the cites has little relation with people's health? （这个听着象个悖论，你的意思就是这个作者是在自己打自己的嘴巴，但是好像Argu没有这么写的~）this turn in the course of events in the argument brings a strong evidence that garbage is harmful to our body.

To sum up, the author fails to lend strong support to what he maintains, even if he cites a absurd （上来就说人家的是absurd好像不大好） survey, after he give some groundless reasons, this argument suffers from several logical flaws deeply. To make the argument more convincing, the author should provide more information about the survey. Additionally, he should indagate whether garbage cites is harmful.这句是不是笔误了？ therefore, if the argument contains these given factors, it will be more acceptable
(第一次写成这样很不错了，但是我觉得还是有一些技巧没有掌握。你也许可以多看看范文。在逻辑思路上面应该多下点功夫。最好，每一段就攻击一个点，然后每一段第一句，就把你要说他哪里说的不对写上，这就是我们说的Topic sentence。写之前一定要写个提纲，不能想到哪里写到哪里。嗯，加油~)

xomaeUID：2468629

多谢组长~改的这么详细，都点中要害了哦，很清楚，继续努力,我确实很少看范文哈:(  不过把别人的提纲却看的不少...现在觉得还是要自己多练,多修改;d: