Argument165 第21篇 请有意互改的G友看过来，给连接吧。我会狠狠的回拍！！

iPodUID: 2105485

Argument165  第21篇 请有意互改的G友看过来，给连接吧。我会狠狠的回拍！！
------摘要------
作者：iPod     共用时间：31分31秒     452 / 494 (after reworked) words
从2005年7月18日11时16分到2005年7月18日11时31分
------题目------
The following appeared in a business magazine.
'As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods.'
------正文------
In this argument, the speaker draws upon a test of Promofoods to convince us that those recalled cans did not pose a health risk. However, a close inspection will reveal how groundless this argument is.

To begin with, a major problem with this argument is that of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in tested samples of the cans. Therefore, those recalled cans did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. It is totally unsound. For other three chemicals may be just the ones that cause dizziness and nausea of consumers. The speaker must not ignore this possibility but if he does so, and an announcement that all the cans are safe would surely make more victims of dizziness and nausea, as I assume.

Furthermore, another disadvantage that weakens the reasoning of the argument is that the speaker fails to make sure that there are no causal relationship between the natural three remaining suspected chemicals and consumers' symptoms of dizziness and nausea. Since the assertion that those three chemicals were naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods cannot prove the safety and innocuity of those recalled cans. What is more, what about the cans that did not be recalled and tested by Promofoods? The speaker simply tells us that eight million cans of tuna were returned, however, he fails to tell us that those were all and one cans of the tuna that may cause dizziness and nausea. It is safe to guess that those cans that were not recalled and tested are the very ones that caused uncomfortableness.

Finally, before I come to my conclusion, I have to point out more flaw that undermines the argument. Only based on a fact that just tested uncertain number of samples of the recalled cans can the speaker assure that all of which were safe and did not pose a health risk? It is natural to guess that the number of tested samples was a minority of all the recalled cans, there were, for instance, just 100 or 200 cans and so forth. The tiny tested data cannot stand for the whole safe conditions of recalled cans, and there is a doubt that those tested samples reported as safety while those untested ones contains all the eight chemicals causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea. The speaker cannot neglect those untested ones.

To sum up, the argument seems to be plausible, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. To make his argument more convincing, the speaker should take the following conditions into consideration. First, to make sure that the left three suspected chemicals would not cause symptoms of dizziness and nausea . Second, be certain that all of the suspected cans are recalled. Finally, to assure us that sufficient number of recalled cans are tested to prove the security and innocuity. Unless the argument contains those discussed factors above, it would be sound and adequate.

jamesprcUID: 2119791

In this argument, the speaker draws upon a test of Promofoods to convince(我认为convince有成功说服的意思，用try to convince  或to conclude that...) us that those recalled cans did not pose a health risk. However, a close inspection will reveal how groundless this argument is.

To begin with, a major problem with this argument is that of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in tested samples of the cans. Therefore, those recalled cans did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk.(我个人认为逻辑问题应用一个长句指出，这里用两句有些别扭） It is totally unsound. For other three chemicals may be just the ones that cause dizziness and nausea of consumers.（合成一句最好It is totally unsound.for other ... ） The speaker must not ignore this possibility but (不构成转折）if he does so, and an announcement that all the cans are safe would surely make（result in) more victims of dizziness and nausea, as I assume.(这句话有些别扭）

Furthermore, another disadvantage that weakens the reasoning of the argument is that the speaker fails to make sure that there are no causal relationship between the natural three remaining suspected chemicals(three detected natural chemicals) and consumers' symptoms of dizziness and nausea. Since（这个词好像不能用在单句中作因为讲） the assertion that those three chemicals were naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods cannot prove the safety and innocuity of those recalled cans. （不够深入，在讲讲为生么证明不了。以下论证和本段中心无关，可以分一段）What is more, what about the cans that did not be（have not been) recalled and tested by Promofoods? The speaker simply tells us that eight million cans of tuna were returned, however, he fails to tell us that those were all and one(这个用法没见过，不知地不地道） cans of the tuna that may cause dizziness and nausea. It is safe to guess that those cans that were not recalled and tested are the very ones that caused uncomfortableness.

Finally, before I come to my conclusion, I have to point out more flaw（flaws) that undermines the argument. Only based on a fact that just tested uncertain number of samples of the recalled cans can the speaker assure that all of which(which改为the realled cans) were(are) safe and did(does) not pose a health risk? It is natural to guess that the number of tested samples was a minority of all the recalled cans(the number of tested samples is minor compared to the total number of recalled cans 主语是number主宾一致), there were, for instance, just 100 or 200 cans and so forth. （将there大写,整个句子分两句来说，火彻底修改整个句子）The tiny tested data cannot stand for the whole safe conditions of recalled cans, and there is a doubt that those tested samples reported as safety while those untested ones contains all the eight chemicals causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea（这和上一段后面说的都是样本代表性，重复）. The speaker cannot neglect those untested ones.

To sum up, the argument seems to be plausible, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. To make his argument more convincing, the speaker should take the following conditions into consideration. First, to make sure that the left three suspected chemicals would not cause symptoms of dizziness and nausea . Second, be certain that all of the suspected cans are recalled. Finally, to assure us that sufficient number of recalled cans are tested to prove the security and innocuity. Unless the argument contains those discussed factors above, it would be sound and adequate.

语言，语法还有些问题。有些词不太恰当。证段之间互相有交叉，应一段分析一方面问题，且尽量清晰明确。还有几个错误可以涉及一下：1，测试的执行者属于Promofood，结果可能被歪曲。2，三中被证实含有的化学成分含量可能高于其它食品罐头，因而导致了那些症状。3，可能是八种常见的导致这些症状的化学品之外的化学物质导致身体不适。4，pose a health risk不仅包括头晕和恶心，还有其他症状，结论太宽泛

以上纯个人意见，限于水平不当之处请海涵。
我写的一篇请帮我拍拍 https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ghlight=argument165

[ Last edited by jamesprc on 2005-7-24 at 14:47 ]