argument38 Ares战队George第六次作业

baihe1988UID: 2203505

Argument 38 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.'
正文：
The arguer asserts that in order to prevent colds and lower absenteeism, people in WM (short for West Meria) should take in enough amount of Ichthaid. However, as for the assertion is based on a series of unwarranted preconditions, I am afraid the arguer probably can not convince us that his conclusion is correct.

To begin with, the arguer has committed a serious fallacy of false analogy between the two cities of WM and EM (short for East Meria). The study cited in this argument by the author has only says the condition of EM, without referring anything concerning the WM. Accordingly, the arguer could not abruptly get any conclusion about WM without bringing out any similarities between the two cities. Maybe there are no similarities at all between WM and EM. If many considerable differences concerning the health conditions of people in the two cities exist, then any analogy concerning the citizens' health conditions between WM and EM would make no sense at all, let alone any suggestions to the WM residents brought out according to the health conditions in EM residents.

In the second place, even if the analogy between the two cities is proper, the conclusion of this argument is still unconvincing, because the arguer's conclusion is also based on another important, however, unfounded precondition, which says that colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work. The arguer did not given any relevant backgrounds of the colds as a reason in WM, hence, we could not believe the correctness of the precondition that the colds are the mainly reason used for absences from school and work. Probably many other relevant factors, such as the traffic conditions, the heavy load of the school for students, low salaries of the white-collars and so on, would also lead to the absences from school and work significantly. Without ruling out these related and important possible factors, the arguer could not convince us that his precondition is right, let alone the ultimate conclusion.

Last but not least, even the two preconditions quoted above are both correct, however, the arguer's conclusion is still doubtful. As for the big difference between the two notions fish and Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from the fish oil, exists naturally, the conclusion is questionable. People in EM consume a large amount of fish while keeping their bodies in good conditions, as a result, the arguer unfairly assumes that it is the Ichthaid, a kind of fish oil, takes great effect in making EM's residents healthy. However, this assumption is fairly unfounded I afraid. If the arguer could not prove that it is exactly the Ichthaid, but not other materials also existing in fish, which leads to people in health condition, we probably can not believe the trueness of the conclusion.

To sum up, the arguer's conclusion is built upon several unproved assumptions, all of which are unwarranted, at least in this argument. If the arguer wants to make his conclusion more believable, he should provide more exact information concerning the two cities and their residents' heath conditions. Only by that, can the arguer convince us his conclusion.

victorduguUID: 2176422

Argument 38 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.'
正文：
The arguer asserts that in order to prevent colds and lower absenteeism, people in WM (short for West Meria) should take in enough amount of Ichthaid. However, as for the assertion is based on a series of unwarranted preconditions, I am afraid the arguer probably can not convince us that his conclusion is correct.

To begin with, the arguer has committed a serious fallacy of false analogy between the two cities of WM and EM (short for East Meria). The study cited in this argument by the author has only says the condition of EM, without referring anything concerning the WM. Accordingly, the arguer could not abruptly get any conclusion about WM without bringing out any similarities between the two cities. Maybe there are no similarities at all between WM and EM. If many considerable differences concerning the health conditions of people in the two cities exist, then any analogy concerning the citizens' health conditions between WM and EM would make no sense at all, let alone any suggestions to the WM residents brought out according to the health conditions in EM residents. (说实话，觉得这一段很空的感觉，细节的东西比较少，只有一些很模式化的句子，如果不知道题目，很难弄清楚表达的到底是什么，也就是太general，不够specific，到底两个城市哪些地方不同，具体的suggestion是什么，是什么原因让这些difference导致了suggestion的无效，不够清楚)

In the second place, even if the analogy between the two cities is proper, the conclusion of this argument is still unconvincing, because the arguer's conclusion is also based on another important, however, unfounded precondition, which says that colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work. The arguer did not given any relevant backgrounds of the colds as a reason in WM, hence, we could not believe the correctness of the precondition that the colds are the mainly reason used for absences from school and work. Probably many other relevant factors, such as the traffic conditions, the heavy load of the school for students, low salaries of the white-collars and so on, would also lead to the absences from school and work significantly. Without ruling out these related and important possible factors, the arguer could not convince us that his precondition is right, let alone the ultimate conclusion. (这一段不错)

Last but not least, even the two preconditions quoted above are both correct, however, the arguer's conclusion is still doubtful. As for the big difference between the two notions fish and Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from the fish oil, exists naturally, the conclusion is questionable. People in EM consume a large amount of fish while keeping their bodies in good conditions, as a result, the arguer unfairly assumes that it is the Ichthaid, a kind of fish oil, takes great effect in making EM's residents healthy. However, this assumption is fairly unfounded I afraid. If the arguer could not prove that it is exactly the Ichthaid, but not other materials also existing in fish, which leads to people in health condition, we probably can not believe the trueness of the conclusion. (这一段很清晰)

To sum up, the arguer's conclusion is built upon several unproved assumptions, all of which are unwarranted, at least in this argument. If the arguer wants to make his conclusion more believable, he should provide more exact information concerning the two cities and their residents' heath conditions. Only by that, can the arguer convince us his conclusion.

总的来说，第二段和第三段的论证是比较成功的，抓住了关键的错误。而第一段除了说得有些模糊外，错误也抓得不是很准确，应该从East Meria的居民的健康跟吃鱼是否有联系上入手。

PS: 这两天写argument题纲比较多，所以说话比较…，表介意，继续加油哦:--)