Argument38【Persistence小组】第18次作业

vinnieUID: 2104933

2.18
A38The 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 感冒与鱼的消费量并无直接关系
      2 鱼中防止感冒部分未必是ICHTHAID
      3 通过服用鱼油来防止感冒是否经济

In the following argument, through a study report, author indicates that in nearby East Meria , people unlikely get cold as they eat much fish. From that, author concludes that we can recommend daily use of a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. However, after further considerate about this argument, there are many flaws in respective fields so that the conclusion can’t stand well.

The biggest doubtful point I want to mention is that there is no evidence in the argument showing that eating more fish can prevent cold. Although the study reports show that in the place nearby East Meria, people visit the doctor only once or twice for the cold while fish assumption there is very high. But we can’t simply say that there is direct relationship between them. First, we don’t know how many times people usually go to hospital for cold in other areas, if people in other areas also go only once or twice, the assumption that eating fish can prevent cold even not exist. If people in nearby East Meria really get cold much less than other places, we also can’t say it caused by eating fish. There are so many reasons which can prevent the cold. The assumption is unconvincing if author can’t deny other possibilities which can affect people catching cold.

Additionally, even if eating more fish can prevent catching cold actually, we still have no idea that which part of fish works. The meat of fish, bone of fish or even cooking methods of the fish there can prevent catching cold. But in the argument, author didn’t offer more information and analysis, just asserted that the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. Obviously, this assertion can’t stand as it is lack of evidence supporting.

Finally, despite all these flaws, although daily use of the fish nutrition can be a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism, it is still doubtful whether this method is practical or not. For example, if the average times of catching cold for one person is just three or four times a year, is he willing to spend a large amount of money to take fish nutrition everyday to reduce one or two times of catching cold? I think in many people’s view that this method is quite worthless. In the argument, author fails to tell us how the plan of daily use of fish nutrition executes effectively and whether the price of taking nutrition is affordable or not. As a result, that it is worthy or not to prevent cold through taking fish nutrition is still a problem.

In sum, the process of speculation and final conclusion are full of flaws. To strengthen it, author needs to provide more data and investigation to suggest that the fish nutrition can truly prevent cold and the plan of daily use of fish nutrition can be practical. If not, I am afraid to say that the conclusion of study reports in nearby East Meria is just coincidence.