argument38 [0710G +U Aug小组]第7次作业

cofeebeanUID: 2289548

不好意思，看错题了，把频率作为题号:funk: 各位大人将就看看就好。我不如组长勤快，还重写一遍

正文一：针对Report 中的2个陈述问题—〉写完后才觉得这个不应作为主攻方向，应该改为对缺席的原因是否真正由感冒引起，有多大比例是的质疑。转念一想，又觉得是不是有点牵强。哪个更好呢？我也晕了，算了不改了。

二：针对主要的假设：吃鱼防感冒

三：针对每天吃supplement的问题

In order to prevent colds and lower absenteeism, the arguer suggests to use a supplement extracted from fish oil. To support his suggestion, the arguer cites from a report that people seldom visit doctors for colds on the basis of high consumption of fish. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as following.

The auger is mistaken in inferring the necessary relation between eating fish greatly and preventing colds from two independent facts about consuming fish and people visiting doctors in neighboring place. As for fish consumption, it is more likely that those fish are consumed by industries which produce certain supplement extracting from fish than by ordinary people. The fact that people seldom visit the doctor for colds doesn’t mean they seldom catch colds for most people are used to think it a waste to see a doctor just for little colds. Taking a good rest at home and drinking more water may be enough for them to recover from colds.

Granted that people in nearby industry do eat fish much and seldom catch colds, the arguer is failing to consider other reasons to prevent people from colds. Such alternatives include demographical structure of population, physical healthy conditions and living hobbies of people. Perhaps in this nearby place, there are much more younger people who pay more attention to their diet and spend more time in physical exercises so that most of them have a good physical condition to get away from colds. It appears reasonable, therefore, for the arguer to focus on these factors than consuming fish to find a way preventing colds.

Even if the assumption of fish preventing colds was somewhat valid, the argument would still have some problems with its suggestion of using lchthaid daily. Does this supplement derived from fish oil have the same effect as fresh fish? Maybe it’s rather nutritious and effective in other aspects than in preventing colds. Is there any negative effect of using it every day? It is casual for a public health council to make a suggestion about any supplement before these aspects are fully investigated, although the arguers’ suggestion is made for the sake of people.

To sum up, the suggestion in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make a reasonable suggestion of a supplement, the arguer should provide more information about its usage, function as well as negative effective. In addition, to find a good way to prevent colds, the arguer also should pay more energy to investigate physical conditions, living habits of people and other factors which have more relation with colds.

[ 本帖最后由 cofeebean 于 2007-7-31 22:01 编辑 ]

SatanicUID: 2362211

argument38 0710G +U Aug小组第7次作业
不好意思，看错题了，把频率作为题号 各位大人将就看看就好。我不如组长勤快，还重写一遍
正文一：针对Report 中的2个陈述问题—〉写完后才觉得这个不应作为主攻方向，应该改为对缺席的原因是否真正由感冒引起，有多大比例是的质疑。转念一想，又觉得是不是有点牵强。哪个更好呢？我也晕了，算了不改了。
二：针对主要的假设：吃鱼防感冒
三：针对每天吃supplement的问题

In order to prevent colds and lower absenteeism, the arguer suggests to use a supplement extracted from fish oil. To support his suggestion, the arguer cites from a report that people seldom visit doctors for colds on the basis of high consumption of fish. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as following.
The auger is mistaken in inferring the necessary relation between eating fish greatly and preventing colds from two independent facts about consuming fish and people visiting doctors in neighboring place. 我觉得这里最好明确点出，作者误将相互关系看作因果关系。As for fish consumption, it is more likely that those fish are consumed by industries which produce certain supplement extracting from fish than by ordinary people. The fact that people seldom visit the doctor for colds doesn’t mean they seldom catch colds for most people are used to think it a waste to see a doctor just for little colds. Taking a good rest at home and drinking more water may be enough for them to recover from colds.我现在喜欢结尾点一下本段中心，不知你觉得如何
Granted that people in nearby industry do eat fish much and seldom catch colds, the arguer is failing fails to consider other reasons to prevent people from colds. Such alternatives include demographical这个词厉害 structure of population, physical healthy conditions and living hobbies of people. Perhaps in this nearby place, there are much more younger people who pay more attention to their diet and spend more time in physical exercises so that most of them have a good physical condition to get away from colds. It appears reasonable, therefore, for the arguer to focus on these factors than consuming fish to find a way preventing colds.
Even if the assumption of fish preventing colds was somewhat valid, the argument would still have some problems with its suggestion of using lchthaid daily. Does this supplement derived from fish oil have the same effect as fresh fish? Maybe it’s rather nutritious and effective in other aspects than in preventing colds. Is there any negative effect of using it every day? It is casual for a public health council to make a suggestion about any supplement before these aspects are fully investigated, although the arguers’ suggestion is made for the sake of people. 这段论述的相当好，有些观点我一下都没想到
To sum up, the suggestion in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make a reasonable suggestion of a supplement, the arguer should provide more information about its usage, function as well as negative effective.第一个批驳点是comparing,第三个批驳点是lchthaid的功效，最好在这句中点出，因为这里是总结所有的批驳点。 In addition, to find a good way to prevent colds, the arguer also should pay more energy to investigate physical conditions, living habits of people and other factors which have more relation with colds.

//你语言很好，基本没有句法错误，语句通顺流畅，行文规范，思路清晰。我也学着你让思路更清晰。
不过看题后，我总结的第二个批驳点是旷课旷工的其他原因而不是感冒。这个可以批驳一下。其他2个批驳点是一样的  ：）