Argument38 【0706G－LOVEAW小组】第十一次作业 by aic00

aic00UID: 2277302

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."

The conclusion offered by the author is unacceptable for several steps of his logical confusing reasoning. I will discuss one by one in the following details.
First, the treatment the author provided is based on a study in nearby East Meria. Lacking particular evidence, the author fails to prove the fact that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds and thus can lower absenteeism could be extended to other places especially without considering several situations differ from one place to another, such as medical treatment, habit of exercise, environmental pollution and the forth. Without ruling out these factors that affect the effectivity of the treatment and with no more specific information about the spreading value, it is impossible to assess the reliability of the study's results or to draw firm conclusion.
In the second place, the argument assumes a causal relationship between the high fish consumption and the time people visit doctor for the treatment of colds, where only a correlation has been indicated. Lacking causal relationship, it is hardly to conclude that eating fish could prevent residents from catching cold, let alone the extending value to other places. It is likely other facts, like people's exercise habit, comfortable climate, result in people's less times of visiting doctors.
In addition, the author commits a fallacy of a hasty generalization. Given that eating fishing could prevent colds, it does not follow that eating Ichthaid derived from fish oil will have equal effects on preventing colds. What's more, the author does not provide any solid information concerning the effective component of eating fishing. It is likely that the fish oil never play a major role in preventing colds, or even that the effective component of fish deprived in the progress of Ichthaid's production. So it is unwarranted to conclude the positive influence to lower absenteeism either.
In summary, the author fails to convince me that daily use of Ichthaid can prevent colds and even lower absenteeism for the ill-logical reasoning. More data of the study, and further information about the details of eating fish could prevent colds and thus Ichthaid derived from fish oil are effective component.

[ 本帖最后由 aic00 于 2007-2-25 21:26 编辑 ]

小猫儿UID: 2297873

The conclusion offered by the author is unacceptable for several steps of his logical confusing reasoning. I will discuss one by one in the following details.
First, the treatment the author provided is based on a study in nearby East Meria. Lacking particular evidence, the author fails to prove the fact that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds and thus can lower absenteeism could be extended to other places especially without considering several situations differ from one place to another, such as medical treatment, habit of exercise, environmental pollution and the forth. (还是不够细,可以举例具体说说怎么不一样)Without ruling out these factors that affect the effectivity of the treatment and with no more specific information about the spreading value, it is impossible to assess the reliability of the study's results or to draw firm conclusion.
In the second place, the argument assumes a causal relationship between the high fish consumption and the time people visit doctor for the treatment of colds, where only a correlation has been indicated. Lacking causal relationship, it is hardly to conclude that eating fish could prevent residents from catching cold, let alone the extending value to other places. It is likely (that)other facts, like people's exercise habit, comfortable climate, result in people's less times of visiting doctors.
In addition, the author commits a fallacy of a hasty generalization. Given that eating fishing could prevent colds, it does not follow that eating Ichthaid derived from fish oil will have equal effects on preventing colds. What's more, the author does not provide any solid information concerning the effective component of eating fishing. It is likely that the fish oil never play a major role in preventing colds, or even that the effective component of fish deprived in the progress of Ichthaid's production. So it is unwarranted to conclude the positive influence to lower absenteeism either.
In summary, the author fails to convince me that daily use of Ichthaid can prevent colds and even lower absenteeism for the ill-logical reasoning. More data of the study, and further information about the details of eating fish could prevent colds and thus Ichthaid derived from fish oil are effective component
还是那个问题,论证不够具体有说服力,没有给出清楚的反驳