argument38 求拍拍~~~~~~助人者天助也~~~留链互拍

游魂小葵UID: 182502

限时未成功，这是修改后的版本了，请诸位大侠指点一下。：）

TOPIC: ARGUMENT38 - The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.

"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."
WORDS: 336（526）          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-3-22

According to the memo, the arguer advocates the daily use of a nutritional supplement deprived from fish oil--lchthaid, in order to reduce absenteeism from school and work in West Meria (WM). Although it is credible on the surface, closer examination will reveal its hidden defects in his/her reasoning as follows.

Firstly, the arguer simply equates the frequency of visiting doctor for treating cold with the frequency of catching cold. However, this is not necessarily the case. Perhaps the frequency of catching cold in East Meria (EM) is as high as, if not higher than, WM, while residents there are more willing to take a few pills to cure themselves rather than look for treatment in hospital when they catch cold. Without ruling out this possible scenario, the arguer can not convince me that the consumption of fish is the reason for less chance of catching cold.

Secondly, granted that inhabitants in EM are in fact less likely to catch cold than WM, the arguer’s assertion that it is attributed to the high consumption of fish is still groundless. It is entirely possible that the residents of EM have a better awareness of health so that they exercise more regularly than people live in other location do. Equally possible is that the weather in EM is so mild that provide bacteria which give rise to cold less chance to survive and spread. In either event, it is presumptuous to ascribe the low cold rate to the function of fish according to the mere fact that the fish consumption is extremely high.

In addition, even assuming that eating fish is credited for the low cold rate in EM, the arguer simply equates EM and WM, which is groundless. Common sense tells us various factors can give rise to the difference between two locations, such as living habit, food culture, and weather condition as well. Lacking such information, the arguer cannot convince me that EM and WM are in fact comparable,  

Further more, in advocating the daily use of Ichthaid, the arguer provide no testament to indicate that his/her recommendation is suffice for the purpose of reducing cold rate. Since Ichthaid is only a nutritional supplement deprived from fish oil, it is entirely possible that the nutrition which contributes to the immunity of cold is not contained in it. Without ruling out this possible scenario, the arguer cannot convince me that his/her suggestion is indeed effective.
Finally, if the cold is only the most common "excuse" to evade from work and study rather than the most common ailment for the officers and students, it is obviously that the arguer's recommendation will still in vain to reduce the absenteeism.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands, at least based on the memo. To strengthen it the arguer must provide more information to show that easting fish is the effective method to get rid of cold, the arguer also have to substantiate that WM and EM are in fact comparable. To better evaluate the argument, it would also be helpful to collect more information concerning EM’s dwellers’ further information which might give rise to the immunity of cold.

goodgoodstudyUID: 201753

According to the memo, the arguer advocates the daily use of a nutritional supplement deprived from fish oil--lchthaid, in order to reduce absenteeism from school and work in West Meria (WM). Although it is credible on the surface, closer examination will reveal its hidden defects in his/her reasoning as follows.

Firstly, the arguer simply equates the frequency of visiting doctor for treating cold with the frequency of catching cold. However, this is not necessarily the case. Perhaps the frequency of catching cold in East Meria (EM) is as high as, if not higher than, WM, while residents there are more willing to take a few pills to cure themselves rather than look for treatment in hospital when they catch cold. Without ruling out this possible scenario, the arguer can not convince me that the consumption of fish is the reason for less chance of catching cold. （呵呵，这段的例子有点让人郁闷，perhaps后面的东西虽然说结构上没问题，但是由点牵强，生病要看病撒~~除非那些人都是土人不看病，自生自灭。。。所以建议这种可能性的例举最好能改一改）

Secondly, granted that inhabitants in EM are in fact less likely to catch cold than WM, the arguer’s assertion that it is attributed（应该改成it attributes 被动用错了） to the high consumption of fish is still groundless. It is entirely possible that the residents of EM have a better awareness of health so that they exercise more regularly than people live in other location do. Equally possible is that the weather in EM is so mild that provide bacteria which give rise to cold less chance to survive and spread. In either event, it is presumptuous to ascribe the low cold rate to the function of fish according to the mere fact that the fish consumption is extremely high.（这段基本上是和第一段一个意思，就是说fish不一定是导致低感冒率的因子，所以lz这段应该和第一段并起来说！分成两段多了那么多结构性文字， 很累赘！）

In addition, even assuming that eating fish is credited（这个词用得不好，assurance可以考虑用下） for the low cold rate in EM, the arguer simply equates EM and WM, which is groundless. Common sense tells us various factors can give rise to the difference between two locations, such as living habit, food culture, and weather condition as well. Lacking such information, the arguer cannot convince me that EM and WM are in fact comparable,  （为什么一段的最后用逗号？呵呵，太粗心了！当然false analogy应该重点批判，lz这里的笔墨少了点）

Further more, in advocating the daily use of Ichthaid, the arguer provide no testament to indicate that his/her recommendation is suffice for the purpose of reducing cold rate. Since Ichthaid is only a nutritional supplement deprived from fish oil, it is entirely possible that the nutrition which contributes to the immunity of cold is not contained in it. Without ruling out this possible scenario, the arguer cannot convince me that his/her suggestion is indeed effective. （其实这段不错的说~~）
（段与段之间记得空行！）
Finally, if the cold is only the most common "excuse" to evade from work and study rather than the most common ailment for the officers and students, it is obviously that the arguer's recommendation will still in vain to reduce the absenteeism.（这段应该提起来着力说！）

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands, at least based on the memo. To strengthen it the arguer must provide more information to show that easting fish is the effective method to get rid of cold, the arguer also have to substantiate that WM and EM are in fact comparable. To better evaluate the argument, it would also be helpful to collect more information concerning EM’s dwellers’ further information which might give rise to the immunity of cold.

这篇很熟咯，基本上是先批驳false analogy，然后是再说明cold和absentism是很无稽之谈就可以咯!基本上没什么困难的说~~不过lz似乎把侧重点弄得比较糊涂点的说~~

游魂小葵UID: 182502

谢谢good同学的指导，果然是雷锋啊~~~~~
这就贴下去认真研读！