argument38 [0710G +U Aug小组]第17次作业

571633UID: 2333480

题目：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."

Citing people who eat fish frequently can hardly get cold in East Meria, the memo recommends that in order to prevent colds and lower absenteeism the people in West Meria should eat lchthaid because lchthaid is a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil. However, further reflection tells me that the arguer ignores many practical problems.

First of all, the writer of the memo said that eating substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. In order to bolster the assumption, he cites that in nearby East Meria people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds because they eat fish. Nevertheless, the survey can hardly support the conclusion for the memo fails to rule out other reasons. For example, the citizen living in the West Meria often do some fitness, or they treat themselves if they get cough. So we can never get the conclusion that the people can hardly get cold is because they often eat fish.

Quite apart from the logistic problem, granted that often eating fish can present getting cold, we can hardly say that the daily use of lchthaid can prevent cold even if it is a nutritional supplement of the fish. Because it is highly possible that other things of the fish can prevent cold rather than the lchthaid. So I can hardly ascribe the perversity on my part but to the inconsequence of the problem of the actual cause of getting cold which is deficient in common sense that I can not reconcile myself to the lesson.

What's more, if we can prevent colds well, we are not sure we can lower absenteeism. For example, in the schools the pupils are willing to go out for fun while the workers want to buy some necessities of lives, that all are the reason of absenteem. So we should not recommend the daily use of lchthaid. Besides of that, any decision aimed at solving the problem of whether to use lechthaid should be based on more information through and comprehensive survey to gather sufficient data so as to identify the actual causes of the problem.

Simply put, the letter's recommendation is not well supported because it relies on certain a series of doubtful assumptions that render it untenable as it stands. Before I can accept it, the writer must supply clearer evidence - perhaps by the way of a local survey or study - that the investigation will support the conclusion that the people in West Meria should use lchthaid daily. To better evaluate the argument we would need more information about the function of lchthaid rather than simply telling us that the people should use lchthaid.

[ 本帖最后由 571633 于 2007-8-11 16:16 编辑 ]