Argument38【0710G Victors互助小组】第6次作业

fengyinyangUID: 2321139

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."

In this argument, the arguer concludes that daily use of Ichthaid as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer shows a study reports that people nearby East Meria ,who consume a large amount of fish, seldom visit the doctor for the treatment, according to which the arguer believes that the nutrition of fish can prevent colds. Moreover, the arguer points out that colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work. A careful examination of this argument will reveal how groundless it is.

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that high consumption of fish nearby East Meria bears some relation to only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. However, the author provides no evidence to support that this is the case, nor does the author establish a causal relationship between them. It is highly possible that other factors might contribute to the same consequence. For example, the high price of treatment or the long distance between their home and hospital makes them consider that cold, as a not so serious disease, don't worth visiting the doctor. Even if they truly rarely catch a cold, it might probably be the result of their good habits or strong immunity. Lacking of such evidence, it is presumptuous to suggest that the ample ingestion of fish is responsible for their few visit to the doctor.

Secondly, it is inaccurate to say that the significantly absenteeism in our schools and workplaces are exclusively elicited by colds. As it's known to all, some students is simply reluctant to go to school and they may create excuses, such as cold. Moreover, the pressure of the work will result in some mental problem like anxiety and tension, which will compelled them to have a rest and ask for a leave. Considering all the factors above, the reasons that be absent from school and work is much diverse and cold is just one of them.

Finally, even though the presumption of the cause is valid, the arguer provides no assurance that Ichthaid, derived from fish oil, contains all the nutrition of fish. Since the extraction may destroy the alimentation which is necessary to prevent colds, the Ichthaid may not serve the same function as the fish do. Moreover, the Ichthaid may cause some side effects to our health because it is not the natural but the man-made the man-made product. If so, use of Ichthaid should be more deliberative.

In summary, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidences concerning the relationship between the seldom visit the doctor and consumption of fish and the diversity of absenteeism. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the components of Ichthaid.

crossingrainbowUID: 145603

1段，
conclude as的涵义用法建议再查一下，是否适合你这里使用。
REPORT里说的是，peolple  in nearby East Meria,而不是在  East Meria附近的人，跟你第一段里claim的不同。

2段
第2句的 however和前面一句没有转折关系，为什么要这样用？

cold, as a not so serious disease, don't worth
“dose not worth”, not “don't worth.”
建议少用缩写。

it might probably be 、
might  和probably分写是什么意思？为什么要重复使用。对于自己不能确定的用法用GOOGLE来看。

没全部读完，建议语言功底上多下功夫。

lemon71500UID: 2335516

In this argument, the arguer concludes that daily use of Ichthaid as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism(that后不是要引导一个从句吗?). To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer shows a study reports that people nearby East Meria, who consume a large amount of fish, seldom visit the doctor for the treatment, according to which the arguer believes that the nutrition of fish can prevent colds. Moreover, the arguer points out that colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work. A careful examination of this argument will reveal how groundless it is.

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that high consumption of fish nearby East Meria bears some relation to only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. However, the author provides no evidence to support that this is the case, nor does the author establish a causal relationship between them. It is highly possible that other factors might contribute to the same consequence. For example, the high price of treatment or the long distance between their home and hospital makes them consider that cold, as a not so serious disease, don't(doesn’t) worth visiting the doctor. Even if they truly rarely catch a cold, it might probably be the result of their good habits or strong immunity. Lacking of such evidence, it is presumptuous to suggest that the ample ingestion of fish is responsible for their few visit to the doctor.

Secondly, it is inaccurate to say that the significantly (significant) absenteeism in our schools and workplaces are exclusively elicited by colds. As it's known to all, some students is (are) simply reluctant to go to school and they may create excuses, such as cold. Moreover, the pressure of the work will result in some mental problem like anxiety and tension, which will compelled them to have a rest and ask for a leave. Considering all the factors above, the reasons that be absent from school and work is (are) much diverse and cold is just one of them.

Finally, even though the presumption of the cause is valid, the arguer provides no assurance that Ichthaid, derived from fish oil, contains all the nutrition of fish. Since the extraction may destroy the alimentation which is necessary to prevent colds, the Ichthaid may not serve the same function as the fish do. Moreover, the Ichthaid may cause some side effects to our health because it is not the natural but the man-made the man-made product. If so, use of Ichthaid should be more deliberative.

In summary, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidences concerning the relationship between the seldom visit the doctor and consumption of fish and the diversity of absenteeism. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the components of Ichthaid.