Argument165 【0710G-小猪快跑小组】第4次作业 By Shalonbas

shalonbasUID: 2184474

TOPIC: ARGUMENT165 - The following appeared in a business magazine.

"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods."
WORDS: 585          TIME: 00:60:00          DATE: 2007-7-28 23:02:24

The author of this argument claims that the product of Promofoods does not contain any chemicals harmful to people's health. His conclusion is based on a test conducted by the chemists of that company, aiming to demonstrate that among the eight tested chemicals, five were not found while the other three existing substances can be also found in other kinds of canned foods. In my opinion, this conclusion is not convincing due to three logical flaws as discussed below.

First of all, this conclusion is derived from a wrong method to testify the safety of the food, which uproots the validity of the result. In this argument, the chemists did experiments to investigate the existence of eight chemicals. This method, however, is based on a groundless assumption that only the eight chemicals can lead to dizziness and nausea. In fact, as stated in this argument, this not the case. These chemicals are just most probable reasons of the symptoms, which does not eliminate the possibility that other kinds of chemical can result into the ailment. Therefore, this method is not sufficient to prove that the canned food from Promofoods is safe. Instead, they should analyze all the kinds of chemicals contained in the product to investigate the possible cause to the symptom. Moreover, perhaps the cause of the ailment is not the chemicals but the cans that contain some toxic heave metal which might lead to the discomfort. In one word, the method mentioned in the argument is not correct and rigorous, and hence unable to support the conclusion

Secondly, the result of that test, five chemicals do not exist in the product, is also questionable. On one hand, the justice of the test is doubtful, for it is the chemists from the same company that are in charge of the test. In order to protect their own interests, it is quite possible that the specialists have disguised the truth by not reporting the real result, which might just lead to an opposite conclusion. Or they could make some fake data by choosing several safe products special for this test. On the other hand, the test is not that rigorous. This argument has not provided the detail information of the samples used in that experiment. If only a dozen out of the eight million cans are analyzed in the test, then it is possible that the good result is just a coincidence and not able to validate any conclusion. Therefore, it is not safe to conclude that the mentioned five chemicals are not contained in the cans.

Thirdly, the fact that the other three chemicals can be also found in other kinds of canned food does not necessarily guarantee the safety of them in Promofoods’s cans. It is well known that the same initial substance can be transformed to different products if combined with different chemicals. It is possible that one of the three chemicals can lead to toxic substance when combined with tuna, while to ordinary carbon hydrate when combined with other kinds of food. Therefore, it is also unfounded to conclude that the remaining three chemicals are safe to human health.

To sum up, in order to prove the safety of that product, it is essential to find a disinterested organization to conduct the testing experiment, in which all of the chemicals in the can and the material of can should be tested. And it is also of great significance that the selected samples are able to tell the truth of that product.

辛苦改我作业的同学了:)

Shania.33UID: 2363464

The author of this argument claims that the product of Promofoods does not contain any chemicals harmful to people's health. His conclusion is based on a test conducted by the chemists of that company, aiming to demonstrate that among the eight tested chemicals, five were not found while the other three existing substances can be also found in other kinds of canned foods. In my opinion, this conclusion is not convincing due to three logical flaws as discussed below.First of all, this conclusion is derived from a wrong method to testify the safety of the food, which uproots the validity of the result. In this argument, the chemists did experiments to investigate the existence of eight chemicals. This method, however, is based on a groundless assumption that only the eight chemicals can lead to dizziness and nausea. In fact, as stated in this argument, this not the case. These chemicals are just most probable reasons of the symptoms, which does not eliminate the possibility that other kinds of chemical can result into the ailment. Therefore, this method is not sufficient to prove that the canned food from Promofoods is safe. Instead, they should analyze all the kinds of chemicals contained in the product to investigate the possible cause to the symptom. Moreover, perhaps the cause of the ailment is not the chemicals but the cans that contain some toxic heave metal （要表达重金属吧？heavy metal）which might lead to the discomfort. In one word, the method mentioned in the argument is not correct and rigorous, and hence unable to support the conclusion Secondly, the result of that test, five chemicals do not exist in the product, is also questionable. On one hand, the justice of the test is doubtful, for it is the chemists from the same company that are in charge of the test. In order to protect their own interests, it is quite（非常强烈的一个修饰词，我觉得引出你下面这个有些主观的理由时，最好不要这样强烈，G的风格就是冷静、公平、客观） possible that the specialists have disguised the truth by not reporting the real result, which might just lead to an opposite conclusion.（感觉这句理由很牵强。凭什么说人家就伪装了事实呢？很主观的一个理由。）Or they could make some fake data by choosing several safe products special for this test. On the other hand, the test is not that rigorous. This argument has not provided the detail information of the samples used in that experiment. If only a dozen out of the eight million cans are analyzed in the test, then it is possible that the good result is just a coincidence and not able to validate any conclusion. Therefore, it is not safe to conclude that the mentioned five chemicals are not contained in the cans.Thirdly, the fact that the other three chemicals can be also found in other kinds of canned food does not necessarily guarantee the safety of them in Promofoods’s cans. It is well known that the same initial substance can be transformed to different products if combined with different chemicals. It is possible that one of the three chemicals can lead to toxic substance when combined with tuna, while to ordinary carbon hydrate when combined with other kinds of food. Therefore, it is also unfounded to conclude that the remaining three chemicals are safe to human health.（论述的不错，很严谨充足～）To sum up, in order to prove the safety of that product, it is essential to find a disinterested organization to conduct the testing experiment, in which all of the chemicals in the can and the material of can should be tested. And it is also of great significance that the selected samples are able to tell the truth of that product.

[ 本帖最后由 Shania.33 于 2007-8-1 15:31 编辑 ]