argument38 [清凉夏日二组]

leonnieUID: 2216142

题目：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."
字数：389          用时：0:29:19          日期：2006-8-4

In this analysis, the author recommends that residents in West Meria(WM) should use lchthaid to prevent colds and absenteeism. To substaintiate the recommdation, the author assums that the residents in EAst Meris(EM) seldom catch colds because the their fish consumption is very high. A close scrutiny would reveal how groundless the recommendation is.

In the first place, the author unfairly assumes that residents in EM seldom catch colds simply basing on the fact that they visit doctors for cold treatment only once or twice a tear. Yet that is not the case. It is entirely possible that the residents take pills instead to visit doctors or they might consider that catchhing colds need not to visit doctors. As a result, the interviews for treatment of colds in EM would undoubtedly lower. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author can not convince us the assumption.

In the second place, even if the residents in EM seldom catch colds, there is no assurance that fish fuctions to prevent colds. Since there is no evdience that fish indeed has this special function. Perhaps the residents in EM have a healthier habits, or perhaps they live in a region where the climate is gentle and warmer throughout a year. Without considering these explanations, the assumption that the fish they eat helps to prevent colds is unpersuasive and misleading.

In the third place, even assuming that eating fish can prevent colds, there is no evidence that lchthaid will equally functions as fish to prevent colds. We are informed that the lchthaid is derived from fish oil. However, there is no assurance that fish oil contains the genuine constituent that prevents cold. Perhaps the effective ingredient is throwed away in the process of deprivation. If this is the case, the fish oil would do nothing to prevent colds, let alone lchthaid. As a result, the author fails to persuade the residents in WM to take lchthaid.


In conclusion, the author fails to persuade the residents in WM to take lchthaid to prevent cold, let along lower absenteeism. To strengthen the recommendation, the author must provide the statistics that residents in EM seldom catch colds as well as the evidence that how does the lchthaid functions to prevent cold. To better analysis the argument, we need more infromation of the function of fish in preventing colds.

helenlhhUID: 2127690

速度还要提一些，用了模版（当然可以用不影响分数）实际有效论证部分的内容不是特别多，刚开始都有这个毛病，我当时也被77说了。ETS给分看你分析错误的能力，忽略模版。
所以抓到错误一定要猛批！说得更详细更有说服力一些，最好的例子就是去看6份范文

helenlhhUID: 2127690

还有几天，加油！你一定能做得更好！

leonnieUID: 2216142

嗯 我会加油