argument38 高频，吃鱼治疗感冒，一起讨论啊！

子旋UID: 2196177

38The 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: 516
This argument is well organized, but without strict logic. In order to support this conclusion, the author states the study report in the nearby East Meria(EM) about their eating fish and getting colds. However, this argument simply claims that the recommendation of daily use of Ichthaid will reduce the rate of absence in school and work in West Meria(WM), which is unwarranted.

In the first place, the major problem with this argument is that the arguer provides no evidence that eating a substantial amount fish can prevent colds even in EM. First, the arguer indicates that the consumption of fish in EM is very high. While this may be true in our common sense that eating fish is good for our health, it is equally possible that it is not effective to the colds. The consumption of fish may be attributed to the people’s inclination of fish as their main food. Second, the fact that people seldom go to hospital for colds is also unwarranted. There are possibilities following. At one hand, most of them may live in a comfortable environment and be in good health and the exercise and other movements may helpful. At the other hand, even they get colds, they choose to stay at home and get it well because they may live in poor lives, or do not like the fussy affairs in the hospital.

Moreover, another problem with this argument is that it is insufficient to find out the similarities between the WM and EM to support the conclusion that WM will benefit from eating fish as EM and reduce the rate of absences. First, the author makes a false assumption that it is the colds that lead to the absences both in EM and WM. Second, even the reason of absences is true in EM, the causes of absences in WM may various, which may not be the same as EM. For example, the climate those days are so bad that many people would not like to go out. Also, it is possible that there is a great exhibition and many families would like to have a view. And it is may be true that the health of the people here is not good for their hard work and pressure, or other diseases beside colds.

Thirdly, the arguer fails to rule out other possibilities that fish oil does not contain the effective chemicals for colds, let alone Ichthaid should not be utilized. In the first place, if the fish oil is really helpful, we also cannot find any evidence that Ichthaid is the right chemical that effective in the oil. There may be other compounds in oil that work out. Also, there are so many compounds in fish such as proteins, amino acids and lipids that we cannot determine which one aim at colds.

Above all, these mere facts do not support the claim sufficiently. Consequently, unless the arguer can demonstrate that the absence in WM can be mostly attributed to the colds, and also, the medicine Ichthaid is effective for their colds, the argument of this issue is unfounded.