argument38 [0710G-summer小组]第四次作业 by 冰河

冰河UID: 2302448

TOPIC: ARGUMENT38 - 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."
WORDS:525          TIME: 0:44:36          DATE: 2007-2-6
1食用鱼和减少感冒没有必然联系
2没有证据表明别的地方更多地因为感冒去看病
3 Ichthaid未必有鱼中预防感冒的营养物质，也未必就比鱼和其他产品好
4人们因感冒请假很有可能使借口，即便不容易感冒，他们还是会找出其他借口
In this memo, the arguer recommends using Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To support his recommendation, the arguer cites a study reports showing that consumption in East Meria (EM) is very high and people there seldom get colds. In addition, the arguer claims that colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work. The memo suffers from several critical flaws.

First of all, the argument concludes base on a correlation between the diet of fish and low frequency of cold. Yet the correlation alone amount to scant evidence of the claimed cause-and-effect relationship. It is possible that the environmental condition of EM is suitable for people to keep health. Or, perhaps other consumptions in EM which can prevent getting cold effectively are also very high. Or，people there take more sports and exercises to keep health. Other scenarios, if true, the conclusion that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds is open to doubt.

In addition, although people visit the doctor only once or twice per year nearby East Meria, no evidence shows that people in other areas visit the doctor more times per year, namely healthy condition of residents in that area is better. It is entirely possible that residents other areas also seldom visit the doctor per year. If so, the memo would lose its persuasive whatsoever.

Even if healthy bodies in East Meria attribute to usages of fish, no evidence shows it is fish oil, rather than other substances that effectively prevent people from getting cold. It is well known that fish contains various nutritional substances which can enhance the immune system of the human body. Without ruling out the possibility that other substances contained in fish can effectively prevent getting cold, the arguer can not convince me that Ichthaid which is derived from fish contains the particular substance which can help us get rid of cold. Besides, the arguer fails to show any reason to convince me that we should use Ichthaid, rather than fish and other product contains similar nutritional supplement as the formal takes some advantages.

Finally, the arguer unfairly assumes that by preventing people from colds absences from school and work will effectively reduce. It is entirely possible that cold is a convenient excuse for most of those who are absent and apply a leave. Even it is becoming harder to get cold after using the nutritional supplement the arguer recommends, those people may find other excuses to be absent. Without ruling out this possibility, the arguer can not convince me that using Ichthaid is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism.

In conclusion the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it, the arguer must provide more evidence showing that Ichthaid contains the exact substance that can reduce the possibility to get cold and it takes some advantages than fish and other product. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information to ensure that those people who claim to have got cold do not take it for excuse and thus be absent from school and work.

dragonraceUID: 178536

一个非常典型的错误类比没有找出来。那就是这篇memo是在west meria的健康杂志上发表的，建议居民多吃鱼，但是内容叙述的却是east meria的情况，因此是错误类比。A和B之间的错误类比在argument中有两种体现：A和B都在正文中；A在题头，B在正文中，所以大家不要不看题头。所有逻辑错误可以按照让步式攻击方法进行攻击。

rainyni0812UID: 2186847

1食用鱼和减少感冒没有必然联系2没有证据表明别的地方更多地因为感冒去看病(这不是一个大的错误，实在要写，可以在某点里提一下)3 Ichthaid未必有鱼中预防感冒的营养物质，也未必就比鱼和其他产品好4人们因感冒请假很有可能使借口，即便不容易感冒，他们还是会找出其他借口
另外同意dragonrace的说法，错误类推这个大错误漏了,其他的如论证过程都还中规中举。
argument简单也容易丢分，就是大家都还好的情况下自己出现失误就惨了，按算分标准，遗漏重大错误扣份很多，给个低分那issue的压力就相当大了，而一般issue是难拿高分的，所以有时不大同意新东方保argument争issue的说法，实际上要扬长避短，argument精益求精力求5分，这时issue有个一般的论证过程拿到4分总体就有4.5，能拿到issue4.5，则整体分数就是5分。