Argument38 【米国有米】小组 第七次作业,请猛批

ernest81888UID: 2247639

开头—让步式开头

错误一：False analogy East Meria’s study report can not represent West Meria will also benefit form the fish oil

错误二：Correlation to causation：吃鱼所以感冒少的相关关系，并不一定是因果关系

错误三：One-sidedness 只考虑了吃鱼的好处，但并没有考虑其可能带来的弊端

In this argument the speaker recommend that West Meria should daily use fish oil nutritional supplement as a good way to prevent cold and lower absenteeism. The recommendation is based on the study report of East Meria, which shows their high fish consumption and low colds occur rate. Meanwhile, the author also assumes eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. At a first glance, the analysis appears to be somehow plausible, but further reflection reveals that it suffers from at least 3 logical flaws.

Firstly, the author commits a fallacy of false analogy in assuming that West Meria will achieved that same result as East Meria does if eating a substantial fish consumption could reduce their colds occur rate and then leads to a lower absenteeism. The reasoning is questionable because similarities between two events and the environments in which they are hold may not be sufficient enough to warrant this claim. For example, perhaps West Meria is located in a weather changeable area, whereas East Meria’s climate is so good that very few people live there gets colds from history to now. Or perhaps there is little clinic available to East Meria, people living there could have little chance to meet their doctors, thus frequent of visiting doctor for cold treatment is seldom. All I mentioned above might lead to the result of East Meria’s study report. The speaker’s failure to investigate or even consider other possible explanations for the recommendation is highly suspect.

Secondly, even if the study report of East Meria could represent the same result of West Meria, the speaker’s assumption that eating fish can prevent colds is still inconvincible. To establish a general causal relationship between eating fish oil and reducing colds occur rate, other factor that could result in East Meria’s lower getting colds should be considered and eliminated. For example, besides highly like eating fish, the EM people also have a great assumption in beef,chicken, or other product which can contribute to provent colds. therefore, the recommendation based on the report is groundless.

Last but not least, I am also afraid that eating a substantial fish may benefit us from getting colds, but the shortcoming of it can even not be ignored. It is possible eating fish everyday may be harmful to human body and generate other physical disease. It is also entirely possible some kinds of fish contain toxin which will definitely be lethal to people. Or perhaps elder people is noot benefit from fish that may cause high rish of other diseases. If this is the case, then it will be foolish to take the author’s recommendation.

In sum, this argument is not well supported. To make it logically acceptable, the speaker should provide us more details information about the living difference between East Meria and West Meria. Also, in order to better assess the strength of his recommendation, sufficient evidences need to be rendered to establish whether eating fish could lead to reducing the absenteeism. Lastly, it will also be helpful to make a full investigation about the advantage and disadvantage of eating fish.

[ 本帖最后由 ernest81888 于 2006-12-30 22:53 编辑 ]

aefiterUID: 2134740

In this argument the speaker recommends that West Meria should daily use fish oil nutritional supplement as a good way to prevent cold and lower absenteeism. The recommendation is based on the study report of East Meria, which shows their high fish consumption and low colds occur occurrence rate. Meanwhile, the author also assumes eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. At a first glance, the analysis appears to be somehow plausible, but further reflection reveals that it suffers from at least 3 logical flaws.

Firstly, the author commits a fallacy of false analogy in assuming that West Meria will achieveachieve 不好。 that same result as East Meria does if eating a substantial fish consumption could reduce their colds occur rate and then leads to a lower absenteeism.if 的关系换成when The reasoning is questionable because similarities between two events and the environments in which they are holdhold may not be sufficient enough to warrant this claim.obscure,句子意思不清楚，the similarities between two cases may not be sufficient to warrant the assumption For example, perhaps West Meria is located in a weather changeable合成词 area, whereas East Meria’s climate is so good that very few people liveliving there getsget colds from history to now.in history Or perhaps there is少一个连词 little clinic services available toin  East Meria, people living there could have little chance to meet their doctors, thusthus是副词，后面不跟独立的句子 frequent of visiting doctor for cold treatment is seldom. All I mentioned above might lead to the result of East Meria’s study report. The speaker’s failure to investigate or even consider other possible explanations for the recommendation is highly suspected.failure是肯定的

Secondly, even if the study report of East Meria could represent the same result of West Meriacould be representative in West Meria, the speaker’s assumption that eating fish can prevent colds is still inconvincibleunconvincing. 在说出改进方案前，先指出错误，To establish a general causal relationship between eating fish oil and reducing colds occur rate, other factor that could result in East Meria’s lower getting colds不好 should be considered and eliminatedruled out. For example, besides aside from highly like eating fish, the EM people also have a great assumptionconsumption in beef,chicken, or other product which can contribute to provent colds.下一句还可以在透彻 therefore, the recommendation based on the report is groundless.

Last but not least, I am also afraid that although ，但是although在这里不合适eating a substantial fish may benefit us from getting colds, but the shortcoming of it can even not be ignored. It is possible that eating fish everyday may be harmful to human body and generate other physical disease. It is also entirely possible some kinds of fish contain toxin which will definitely be lethal to people. Or perhaps elder people is noot benefitcan not benefit from fish that may cause high rish of other diseases. If this is the case, then it will be foolish to take the author’s recommendation.

In sum, this argument is not well supported. To make it logically acceptable, the speaker should provide us more details information about the living condition difference between East Meria and West Meria. Also, in order to better assess the strength of his recommendation, sufficient evidences need to be rendered to establish whether eating fish could lead to reducing the absenteeism.结尾提到的这个错误，在文章中没有论述 Lastly, it will also be helpful to make a full investigation about the advantage and disadvantage of eating fish.


关于absenteeism有一个major flaw，不提到似乎不太妥
批改的条目比较多，但是很多都不一定对，
同时，我在语言上看得多一些，关于论证错误，只要言之有理就行，我也提不出什么好的想法。
楼住加油！我也加油！