查看: 1588|回复: 4

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 23
寄托币: 972
注册时间: 2006-3-4
精华: 0
帖子: 78

发表于 2006-8-18 18:42:42 |显示全部楼层

TOPIC: ARGUMENT105 - The following appeared in a health newsletter.

"According to a recent study, people with many social ties report catching colds less often than do people with few social ties. Consequently, researchers conclude that having an active social life probably helps strengthen the immune system. The researchers note that catching a cold-one of a family of highly contagious viruses-gives the cold-sufferer temporary immunity to that virus in the future, but not to the many other related viruses. Merely being exposed to a new cold virus, however, is not enough for a person to catch a cold, since a strong immune system can successfully fight off some new viruses. Thus, in order to prevent catching a cold, people should strengthen their immune systems by becoming more active socially."
时间好紧，结尾差点没写完。
WORDS: 476 TIME: 0:30:00 DATE: 2006-8-18

In this argument, the arguer claims that one joining more social activities could prevent catching a cold easily. To suppor this conclusion, the arguer cites three reports from researchers work: (1) people with more social ties catch colds less; (2) the anti-body of one kind of cold has not effect to another; (3) one could prevent a new cold with immune system. Deep weighing on the mind, all the three reports are based on the groudlessly reasoning.

First, the study, what report people with more social ties catching cold less, is insufficient to support that having an active social life helps strengthen the immune system. In the first place, the size of sample in unknown, while a too little sample cannot report a convincing result. Perhaps, the study only based on the data of people with many social ties in a certain city and the normal one in the whole contury. If it is the case, the data is no use. In the second place, the quantity of respondents open to doubt. Common sense tells us, one being ill does not like to be survey for his or her illness. Similarly, one with many social ties will like to tell other his or her situation while the other is opposite. There is no evidence to rule out such possible scenario that most of respondents is healthy and active socially. In short, there is no causal relationship between the study and its conclusion without complete evidence.

Second, the auger tells us the immunity to one kind of virus is no effective to another. This fact actually decrease the strength of the reasoning in the argument. One with many social ties will meet and interact with many other, so the risk of being exposeed by a new virus rises. Because the immunity to the old virus cannot prevent the news, the rate of catching colds for the socially active people is higher than other, but not lower. So this conclusion supports the opposite view indeed.

Thirdly, is a new cold virus exposing really safe? I think no. Adimttedly, few virus could be killed by the human's immune system. But it will rise the risk of other illness during the killing. As we know, the immunity of human is limited. If many virus expose one, his or her immunity will became busy preventing them and lower its effect. To make matter worse, people with many social ties will be exposed by many kins of virus, and according to the discussion above, they easily suffer from colds or other illness.

To sum up, we can safely draw the conclusion that the argument is unjustifiable. To make us evaluate the argument better, the argue should provide more evidence such as the reliability of the study, the low possiblity of suffer from various virus and their strong enough immunity system to prevent various virus.

[ 本帖最后由 creative 于 2006-8-19 12:33 编辑 ]