argument38 【米国有米】小组第七周作业，请多提意见

bluecathyUID: 2231215

Argument38 [米国有米]第七次作业
作者：bluecathy
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."

[提纲]：
1.论断的前提吃鱼油和吃鱼能起到同样的效果，进而防止感冒减少矿工。但是这点并不能够被证明。虽然说鱼能防止感冒，但并不代表鱼油也能，因为从鱼到鱼油的提炼过程，可能会把鱼中的防止感冒的元素都过滤掉了，因此前提并不能成立。
2.论断引用的东部地区的报告并不是强有力的论据。东部地区人们吃鱼多，一年内只两次去医院看感冒。但首先东部地区的环境气候和西部可能就不一样，有可能东部更温暖暖，气温变化小，感冒的人也就少，不一定是因为吃鱼的原因。其次，感冒的人不一定都回去医院接受治疗，可能有人指要在家里吃药休息就好。没有排除上面的情况，我们不能肯定感冒的人就因为吃鱼而变少了。
3.作者认为感冒是矿工最常见的理由，所以降低感冒也就降低了矿工，但论者并没有提供资料证明多少人是因为感冒而矿工的。并且可能部分人只是以感冒为借口，因为我们都知道身体不舒服时最容易请到假的方法。另外鱼油会不会有副作用，作者也没有提及，也许感冒减少了，但人们改用因为鱼油而生的借口了。
4.论者若要增加说服力还需了解东部人感冒的具体数据以及是否是因为吃鱼而减少了感冒，并且还应该了解鱼油的作用和可能会带来的问题。

[正文]：
In this argument, the arguer concludes that due to a study that people in East Meria go for treatment of colds at a pretty low frequency because of the fish eating, and colds are the most frequent excuse given for absences, thereby using Ichthaid daily is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. Plausible as it may seem, I am afraid that the argument can hardly bear further examination since there are several flaws in it.

To begin with, the results of the study lend little support to this argument. Firstly, the study focus on effect of eating fish rather than eating Ichthaid which is a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil. Although eating fish could result in preventing colds, it doesn't mean that eating this extractant of fish oil will have the same result as fish, since the nutriment which could prevent colds in fish may lose during the extracted process from fish to fish oil. Therefore, daily use of Ichthaid may not bring the effect of preventing cold and lower absenteeism.

secondly, the referenced study report which claims that people in East Meria where fish consumption is very high have a low treatment frequency in hospital provide little evidence to support this assumption. Firstly, the climate and environment of East Meria may not as same as West Meria, perhaps the climate there is warmer and don't change a lot, thus there are fewer people catching colds. Moreover, not all the people who catch colds always go for treatment in hospital, some may stay at home and have a rest, while some may eat pills. If the probabilities mentioned above are not ruled out, we couldn't assert that eating fish would make people get rid of colds for sure.

Furthermore, the arguer doesn't provide any evidence that how many people of all areabsence because of catching colds. May colds be the most frequently reason used for absence, however, colds also may the excuse for absence, as we all know, asserting uncomfortable body is the easiest way to leave. Moreover, the arguer doesn't mention that if Ichthaid has any side-effect, it is possible that the sick leave is caused by fewer colds but more gastroenteritis after using Ichthaid. So, it is inconsiderate for the arguer to think that absenteeism will be prevented while colds are being prevented.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To better substantiate it, the arguer has to provide the data of the people catching colds in East Meria and demonstrate actual effect of Ichithaid and its potential problems.

laner023UID: 2223653

In this argument, the arguer concludes that due to a study that people in East Meria go for treatment of colds at a pretty low frequency because of the fish eating, and colds are the most frequent excuse given for absences, thereby using Ichthaid daily is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. Plausible as it may seem, I am afraid that the argument can hardly bear further examination since there are several flaws in it.

To begin with, the results of the study lend little support to this argument. Firstly, the study focus on effect of eating fish rather than eating Ichthaid（,） which is a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil. Although eating fish could result in preventing colds(你已经承认了作者的假设？), it doesn't mean that eating this extractant of fish oil will have the same result as fish, since the nutriment which could prevent colds in fish may lose during the extracted process from fish to fish oil. Therefore, daily use of Ichthaid may not bring the effect of preventing cold and lower absenteeism.

secondly, the referenced study report which claims that people in East Meria where fish consumption is very high have a low treatment frequency in hospital provide little evidence to support this assumption（what is the assumption? You have to mention it here.）. Firstly, the climate and environment of East Meria may not as same as West Meria, perhaps the climate there is warmer and don't change a lot, thus there are fewer people catching colds. Moreover, not all the people who catch colds always go for treatment in hospital, some may stay at home and have a rest, while some may eat pills. If the probabilities mentioned above are not ruled out, we couldn't assert that eating fish would make people get rid of colds for sure.

Furthermore, the arguer doesn't provide any evidence that how many people of all areabsence(absent) because of catching colds. May colds be the most frequently reason used for absence, however, colds also may the excuse for absence(,)(.) As we all know, asserting uncomfortable body is the easiest way to (be approved to)leave. Moreover, the arguer doesn't mention that if Ichthaid has any side-effect, it is possible that the sick leave is caused by fewer colds but more gastroenteritis after using Ichthaid. So, it is inconsiderate for the arguer to think that absenteeism will be prevented while colds are being prevented.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To better substantiate it, the arguer has to provide the data of the people catching colds in East Meria and demonstrate actual effect of Ichithaid and its potential problems.

语言流畅，基本没什么问题。
逻辑上，错误都挑出来了，但是作者还需要多注意错误与错误之间的逻辑联系。我想，这一点才应该是中国学生之间拉开档次的关键吧。

bluecathyUID: 2231215

没错，我是承认了报告中吃鱼可以防止感冒的这个假设。但是我不承认作者认为吃这种保健品也可以防止感冒。所以我在第一个驳第一个错误的时候说到的是鱼油的提炼物和鱼的不同，因为我觉得这才是最重要的逻辑错误。

嗯，我也觉得自己错误和错误之间的逻辑联系这块不行，现在还没找到好的方法，正在苦恼。