argument38 [0710 Superstar]第十二次作业

totalsm45518UID: 2286658

这篇是上个月考试前写的了 所以可能还很幼稚  大家给点意见吧
words：621

In this argument, the speaker recommends that people should use lchthaid, a kind of nutritional supplement in fish oil in order to prevent colds an lower absenteeism. To support this suggestion, the arguer notes the result coming from a study in nearby East Meria, where citizens consume fish much, indicating a low frequent of people who visiting doctors because of colds. The arguer also points out the present condition that colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work. At first glance, the argument is reasonable, however, when I see much clearer and deeper, I find it problematic in several aspects as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer cites the study taken in nearby East Meria, which indicates that fish consumption is very high there and coincidently people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds, nevertheless, the study lends little support to the arguer’s assumption that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. First, the arguer fails to rule out other elements of food that may result in the low ration of people’s cold in Meria including other proteins, mineral ingredients, organic healthy compounds and so forth. Moreover, the arguer ignores other behaviors and habits of the citizen in Meria such as doing sufficient exercise and having an optimistic heard and mind and much fewer working time and loads, etc, all which can have influence in the fewer colds in Meria. Additionally, the fact that people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds cannot ensure that people rarely catch cold. There is entirely possible that people often choose to take medicine or have enough rest to heal from slight colds rather than go to see a doctor. Therefore, the arguer’s assumption lacks of supportive evidence.

What’s more, granted that in East Meria, the high consumption does help decline the possibility for people to catch colds, the arguer commits a fallacy of oversimplified analogy between East Meria and West Meria. Regardless of complete comparing the two areas’ climate, society space, working and studying systems, the arguer cannot simply come to the conclusion that West Meria will absolutely prevent colds and lower the absenteeism. The claims that colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work does not mean that people are really catching a cold when they are absent, which might be just an excuse or pretext. What’s more, the arguer fails to take into account of other factors that may result in the colds caught by workers and students, maybe there are too many tasks for them and consequently results in their sub-healthy condition leading to colds. In this case, there must be some other methods to lower the absenteeism in West Meria.

Finally, granted that fish can help lower down the colds’ incidence and this is also helpful in West Meria, there is no guarantee that it is the lchthaid and fish oil that plays the useful role. Maybe it is because of some valuable proteins in fish bones or other parts that creates this effect. What’s more, there is no particular information indicating the special kinds of fish that the East Merias have taken, which may be totally different from the fish that lchthaid derived from. Therefore, there is no substantiated relationship between using of lchtaid and effect of preventing colds and lowering absenteeism.

In sum up, the arguer’s recommendation is unconvincing and lack of sufficient evidence as it analyzes. To better strengthen the suggestion, the arguer should provide more statistics, comparisons and deeper test to support that fish and lchthaid do help reducing the possibility to catch cold and thus lowering the absenteeism.

huaxinluoboUID: 2326780

In this argument, the speaker recommends that people should use lchthaid, a kind of nutritional supplement in fish oil in order to prevent colds an lower absenteeism. To support this suggestion, the arguer notes the result coming from a study in nearby East Meria, where citizens consume fish much, indicating a low frequent of people who visiting doctors because of colds. The arguer also points out the present condition that colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work. At first glance, the argument is reasonable, however, when I see much clearer and deeper, I find it problematic in several aspects as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer cites the study taken in nearby East Meria, which indicates that fish consumption is very high there and coincidently people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds, nevertheless, the study lends little support to the arguer’s assumption that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. First, the arguer fails to rule out other elements of food that may result in the low ration of people’s cold in Meria including other proteins, mineral ingredients, organic healthy compounds and so forth. Moreover, the arguer ignores other behaviors and habits of the citizen in Meria such as doing sufficient exercise and having an optimistic heard and mind and much fewer working time and loads, etc, all which can have influence in the fewer colds in Meria. Additionally, the fact that people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds cannot ensure that people rarely catch cold. There is entirely possible that people often choose to take medicine or have enough rest to heal from slight colds rather than go to see a doctor. Therefore, the arguer’s assumption lacks of supportive evidence. [对于顺序我有点异议，如果把看病这条放在开始，然后让步攻击另外两个或许更好]

What’s more, granted that in East Meria, the high consumption does help decline the possibility for people to catch colds, the arguer commits a fallacy of oversimplified analogy between East Meria and West Meria. Regardless of complete comparing the two areas’ climate, society space, working and studying systems, the arguer cannot simply come to the conclusion that West Meria will absolutely prevent colds and lower the absenteeism. The claims that colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work does not mean that people are really catching a cold when they are absent, which might be just an excuse or pretext. What’s more, the arguer fails to take into account of other factors that may result in the colds caught by workers and students, maybe there are too many tasks for them and consequently results in their sub-healthy condition leading to colds. In this case, there must be some other methods to lower the absenteeism in West Meria.

Finally, granted that fish can help lower down the colds’ incidence and this is also helpful in West Meria, there is no guarantee that it is the lchthaid and fish oil that plays the useful role. Maybe it is because of some valuable proteins in fish bones or other parts that creates this effect. What’s more, there is no particular information indicating the special kinds of fish that the East Merias have taken, which may be totally different from the fish that lchthaid derived from. Therefore, there is no substantiated relationship between using of lchtaid and effect of preventing colds and lowering absenteeism.[这段做中间段比较好]

In[To] sum up, the arguer’s recommendation is unconvincing and lack of sufficient evidence as it analyzes. To better strengthen the suggestion, the arguer should provide more statistics, comparisons and deeper test to support that fish and lchthaid do help reducing the possibility to catch cold and thus lowering the absenteeism.

看到字数就够让人崩溃了，比我的ISSUE还多，汗
语言和句子很丰富，每个段落也都很好，只是段落安排上需要改一下。
不知是不是限时写的，要是限时的话就很了不起了。