Argument38 [Spining Sep] 言简意赅的A，求拍

veinardUID: 2195006

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."

In this argument, the author concludes that Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, is an effective way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To support it, the arguer cites a study which reports that people in the nearby East Meria (EM) who consume much fish visit doctors fewer times than average lever and argues that preventing colds can decrease the absenteeism of school and work. Through scrutiny I find this argument has several logical flaws which prevent it from convincing.

First, the arguer fails to prove the causal relationship between the high consumption of fish and the fewer times of visiting doctors for colds. Without further information of the body situation of people in ES and other circumstances of ES, it is entirely possible that it is the weather condition contributes to the high lever of the health situation of people in ES. Or perhaps those citizens pay more attention of preventing colds than other people. Failing in ruling out these possibilities, the arguer cannot convince me that eating much fish can improve the ability to resist colds.

Second, even if eating fish truly attributes to fewer colds, no evidence shows that a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil can also decrease the colds. The arguer does not offer any information about the function of fish oil, so it is doubtful that it is the other part of fish but not fish oil which results in the less cold. Further, in the absence of particular function of Lchthaid, it is impossible for me to believe that Lchthaid dose not contains substances which are detrimental to human body.

Third, even assuming that Lchthaid can effectively decrease the cold and has little negative function, the arguer unfairly supposes that preventing colds successfully can lower absenteeism. Common sense tells me that the reasons for absence from work and school is often relevant to having colds, despite it is true or only a false excuse. In fact, decreasing colds can lower absenteeism is nothing but an illusion.

In sum, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more information of the life situation of people in EM and prove that Lchthaid truly benefits health and reduce colds. Moreover, to further assess this argument, I would need to know that the conditions of the reasons of the absenteeism in West Meria.

flycc28UID: 2164453

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."

In this argument, the author concludes that Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, is an effective way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To support it, the arguer cites a study which reports that people in the nearby East Meria (EM) who consume much fish visit doctors fewer times than average leverlevel and argues that preventing colds can decrease the absenteeism of school and work. Through scrutiny I find this argument has several logical flaws which prevent it from convincing.

First, the arguer fails to prove the causal relationship between the high consumption of fish and the fewer times of visiting doctors for colds. Without further information of the body situation of people in ES and other circumstances of ES, it is entirely possible that it is the weather condition contributes to the high lever of the health situation of people in ES.是想说天气使大家身体状况很好,而不是fish?为了更有说服力一点,起码也要给出什么样的天气,比如正好ES全年气候温和... Or perhaps those citizens pay more attention of preventing colds than other people. Failing in ruling out these possibilities, the arguer cannot convince me that eating much fish can improve the ability to resist colds.

Second, even if eating fish truly attributes to fewer colds, no evidence shows that a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil can also decrease the colds. The arguer does not offer any information about the function of fish oil, so it is doubtful that it is the other part of fish but not fish oil which results in the less cold. Further, in the absence of particular function of Lchthaid, it is impossible for me to believe that Lchthaid dose not contains substances which are detrimental to human body.这层关系也递进的太快了点吧,你的结论是要说LCHTHAID不含有有益物质,而不是说有啊

Third, even assuming that Lchthaid can effectively decrease the cold and has little negative function, the arguer unfairly supposes that preventing colds successfully can lower absenteeism. Common sense tells me that the reasons for absence from work and school is often relevant to having colds, despite it is true or only a false excuse. 关系没看明白...In fact, decreasing colds can lower absenteeism is nothing but an illusion.

In sum, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more information of the life situation 建议用health condition  of people in EM and prove that Lchthaid truly benefits health and reduce colds. Moreover, to further assess this argument, I would need to know that the conditions of the reasons of the absenteeism in West Meria.

zeelichUID: 2194744

Third, even assuming that Lchthaid can effectively decrease the cold and has little negative function, the arguer unfairly supposes that preventing colds successfully can lower absenteeism. Common sense tells me that the reasons for absence from work and school is often relevant to having colds, despite it is true or only a false excuse. 关系没看明白...In fact, decreasing colds can lower absenteeism is nothing but an illusion.

是想说cold不管真假都拿来作为借口吧

jinzhemingUID: 2224073

In this argument, the author concludes that Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, is an effective way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To support it, the arguer cites a study which reports that people in the nearby East Meria (EM) who consume much fish visit doctors fewer times than average lever[level] and argues that preventing colds can decrease the absenteeism of school and work. Through scrutiny I find this argument has several logical flaws which prevent it from convincing.
我看了一本书上说作者的结论是第一句话，不知你如何看？
First, the arguer fails to prove the causal relationship between the high consumption of fish and the fewer times of visiting doctors for colds. Without further information of the body situation[health conditions] of people in ES and other circumstances of ES, it is entirely possible that it is the weather condition [that] ?强调句应该有THAT吧he high lever[level] of the health situation of people in ES. Or perhaps those citizens pay more attention of [to] preventing colds than other people. Failing in ruling out these possibilities, the arguer cannot convince me that eating much fish can improve the ability to resist colds.

Second, even if eating fish truly attributes to fewer colds, no evidence shows that a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil can also decrease the colds. The arguer does not offer any information about the function of fish oil, so it is doubtful that it is the other part of fish but not fish oil which results in the less cold. Further, in the absence of particular function of Lchthaid, it is impossible for me to believe that Lchthaid dose not contains substances which are detrimental to human body.

Third, even assuming that Lchthaid can effectively decrease the cold and has little negative function, the arguer unfairly supposes that preventing colds successfully can lower absenteeism. Common sense tells me that the reasons for absence from work and school is often relevant to having colds, despite it is true or only a false excuse. [这句话我不是很明白，请解释一下] In fact, decreasing colds can lower absenteeism is nothing but an illusion.

In sum, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more information of the life situation of people in EM and prove that Lchthaid truly benefits health and reduce [reduces] colds. Moreover, to further assess this argument, I would need to know that [that应该不要吧] the conditions of the reasons of the absenteeism in West Meria.
我想请教一个问题是不是举的例子应该比较详细，还是可以用几句话

jinzhemingUID: 2224073

这是我的文章，感觉和你的整体结构差不多，但我觉得我得例子比较详细，不知这样好不好。请指点，谢谢:)

In this argument, the author asserts that " an innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism" .To support his assertion, the arguer points out  the reports that very high fish consumption in East Meria  [EM] greatly reduces the times of visiting doctors for the treatment of colds. In addition, the arguer recommends the daily use of a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. However, the argument is flawed in several major aspects.

Firstly, the arguer relies on an unproven cause and effect relationship between the high fish consumption and prevention of colds. Other factors could be responsible for preventing colds. It is possible that people in EM not only take a substantial amount of fish but also have a balanced and nutrient meal including vegetables, meat, dairy products, etc which supplies a variety of essential chemical elements for the body to function well. It is also possible that they take regular exercises, such as running, jogging, swimming to bolster the immune system against colds. Lacking adequate evidence about the way they live, the arguer's solution to the problem is not convincing.

Secondly, even if it were the fact that very high fish consumption clearly prevents colds, the fact alone is insufficient to support the recommendation that taking a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil will prevent colds either. For example, although the fish oil supplement provides the supplemental nutrition that human may lack as a result of bad eating habits, it could not replace the role of eating a lot of fish as a means to prevent colds. Fish and fish oil are two different substances which probably have different chemical elements, and what's more, the elements critical for preventing colds may get lost during the process of derivation. If this is the case, the supplement could, at best, serve the auxiliary role in preventing colds.

Finally, the arguer's assertion that the treatment promises to significantly reduce absenteeism relies on the assumption that no other approach would achieve the same result. However, the author provides no evidence to substantiate the assumption. It is possible, for example, a strict and reasonable measure on absenteeism in which people who are absent must give detailed account of the reasons and, if necessary, the corresponding evidence, might achieve the same goal. Without considering other effective alternatives, the arguer's conclusion is too optimistic.

In sum, the arguer's conclusion is not well reasoned. More studies and analyses are needed to make the assertion creditable.

jinzhemingUID: 2224073

这是我的文章，感觉和你的整体结构差不多，但我觉得我得例子比较详细，不知这样好不好。请指点，谢谢:)

In this argument, the author asserts that " an innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism" .To support his assertion, the arguer points out  the reports that very high fish consumption in East Meria  [EM] greatly reduces the times of visiting doctors for the treatment of colds. In addition, the arguer recommends the daily use of a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. However, the argument is flawed in several major aspects.

Firstly, the arguer relies on an unproven cause and effect relationship between the high fish consumption and prevention of colds. Other factors could be responsible for preventing colds. It is possible that people in EM not only take a substantial amount of fish but also have a balanced and nutrient meal including vegetables, meat, dairy products, etc which supplies a variety of essential chemical elements for the body to function well. It is also possible that they take regular exercises, such as running, jogging, swimming to bolster the immune system against colds. Lacking adequate evidence about the way they live, the arguer's solution to the problem is not convincing.

Secondly, even if it were the fact that very high fish consumption clearly prevents colds, the fact alone is insufficient to support the recommendation that taking a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil will prevent colds either. For example, although the fish oil supplement provides the supplemental nutrition that human may lack as a result of bad eating habits, it could not replace the role of eating a lot of fish as a means to prevent colds. Fish and fish oil are two different substances which probably have different chemical elements, and what's more, the elements critical for preventing colds may get lost during the process of derivation. If this is the case, the supplement could, at best, serve the auxiliary role in preventing colds.

Finally, the arguer's assertion that the treatment promises to significantly reduce absenteeism relies on the assumption that no other approach would achieve the same result. However, the author provides no evidence to substantiate the assumption. It is possible, for example, a strict and reasonable measure on absenteeism in which people who are absent must give detailed account of the reasons and, if necessary, the corresponding evidence, might achieve the same goal. Without considering other effective alternatives, the arguer's conclusion is too optimistic.

In sum, the arguer's conclusion is not well reasoned. More studies and analyses are needed to make the assertion creditable.

veinardUID: 2195006

谢谢大家的修改.先回答flycc28的问题：
1 it is impossible for me to believe that Lchthaid dose not contains substances which are detrimental to human body.双重否定，就是说可能含有有害物质
2 Common sense tells me that the reasons for absence from work and school is often relevant to having colds, despite it is true or only a false excuse.   zeelich说对了，我是想说cold不管真假都拿来作为借口~

jinzheming的A：
In this argument, the author asserts that " an innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism" .不要用引用的形式To support his assertion, the arguer points out  the reports that very high fish consumption in East Meria  [EM] greatly reduces the times of visiting doctors for the treatment of colds. In addition, the arguer recommends the daily use of a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. 我觉得这句话应该放在开头However, the argument is flawed in several major aspects.

Firstly, the arguer relies on an unproven cause and effect relationship between the high fish consumption and prevention of colds. Other factors could be responsible for preventing colds. It is possible that people in EM not only take a substantial amount of fish but also have a balanced and nutrient meal including vegetables, meat, dairy products, etc which supplies a variety of essential chemical elements for the body to function well. 因该排出吃鱼It is also possible that they take regular exercises, such as running, jogging, swimming to bolster the immune system against colds. Lacking adequate evidence about the way they live, the arguer's solution to the problem is not convincing.

Secondly, even if it were the fact that very high fish consumption clearly prevents colds, the fact alone is insufficient to support the recommendation that taking a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil will prevent colds either. For example, although the fish oil supplement provides the supplemental nutrition that human may lack as a result of bad eating habits,这句什么意思 it could not replace the role of eating a lot of fish as a means to prevent colds. Fish and fish oil are two different substances which probably have different chemical elements, and what's more, the elements critical for preventing colds may get lost during the process of derivation. If this is the case, the supplement could, at best, serve the auxiliary role in preventing colds.

Finally, the arguer's assertion that the treatment promises to significantly reduce absenteeism relies on the assumption that no other approach would achieve the same result. However, the author provides no evidence to substantiate the assumption. It is possible, for example, a strict and reasonable measure on absenteeism in which people who are absent must give detailed account of the reasons and, if necessary, the corresponding evidence, might achieve the same goal. Without considering other effective alternatives, the arguer's conclusion is too optimistic.

In sum, the arguer's conclusion is not well reasoned. More studies and analyses are needed to make the assertion creditable.
个人认为，例子对A来说不是非常重要，只要指出other posibilities 就行了