argument38[0806G-desperado小组]第9次作业by hongdan

hongdanUID: 2228730

38The 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."

The arguer professes that a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism in West Meria is to take Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement from fish oil, as daily use. Based on the fact that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people seldom visit the doctor in one year. The argument appears to be well presented; yet close scrutiny reveals that the argument is far from satisfactorily reasoned. Indeed, the argument suffers from several logical flaws, listed as follows.
1.看病少不一定表示生病少。有人觉得是小病，没必要，还浪费钱。
The study in East Meria, which reported that people at that area visit doctor only once or twice per year does not mean that people seldom become ill. It is entirely possible that people in East Meria are not accustomed to see a doctor unless they get serious ill. They think it is not necessary to see a doctor every time when they feel a little worse, even a waste of money. In such case, the low frequency of seeing a doctor for all the people in one or two year can not illustrate that people are seldom getting ill.
2.鱼不一定是唯一的原因。可能天天锻炼，身体底子好，或者吃了别的东西。气候问题。
Even if assuming that people in East Meria are seldom ill, the high assumption of fish can not be the reason. In the study report, nothing is mentioned about the detail information about people in East Meria. For example, people there always do everyday exercises, or originally have good physical conditions, or eat something else that benefits a health body. Also，perhaps in East Meria the climate is more favorable than other places, such as much warmer and little changing temperatures between morning and night. If so, seldom getting ill may due to these above reasons. The high assumption of fish means that they like to eat fish or their resources of fish are abundant. Without rolling out all these possibilities, the conclusion that eating fish can prevent colds according to the survey is not warranted.
3.鱼和鱼油不一样。吃鱼可能吃鱼的全部营养，不一定只吃到鱼油。吃鱼可能防止感冒，光吃鱼油就不一定了。鱼油要经过提炼的过程，不能保证对感冒起作用的元素留下了。
However, based on the assumption that eating fish can prevent colds, the suggestion by the arguer is that taking Ichthaid as daily use is not doomed to bring the same effects as eating fish. Obviously," fish", "fish oil", and even Ichthaid are three different matters. May some nutrients in fish can prevent colds, while fish oil does not exist these nutrients. When eating a fish one is very probable to eat the whole parts of fish, not just the oil. Even if there remain the nutrients in fish oil, we can not guarantee that Ichthaid still has these nutrients. As we know, Ichthaid is extracted from fish oil, and extraction process may be very complicated and some useful nutrients for preventing colds in fish are lost.  Hence, the suggestion is not appropriate.
4.两个地方不同，错误类比。两地人的饮食习惯不同，经济情况不同，买到鱼的便利情况，可能更贵，负担不起。
Again, in the argument the arguer makes a false analogy between two different places "East Meria" and "West Meria". People in different areas are very likely to have different dietary habits and different physical conditions. If people in West Meria cannot be accustomed to eating fish oil, then the suggestion can not be realistic. It is also perhaps that West Meria is scare of fish, that is, expensive to get fish or fish oil, then the suggestion can not really be put into practice.
5. 感冒是缺席的经常原因吗？可能只是借口，更严格的制度可能能更好些。
Finally, the arguer says that colds are the most frequently given reason for absences from school and class, but whether it is the real reason remains a question? It is common sense that most people just take colds as an excuse for absence, maybe they have some other real reasons. Without doing enough survey, we can not be convinced that colds are just the main reason. Maybe other methods can prevent absenteeism, such as more strict regulations and so forth.

In sum, the arguer in the argument does not take sufficient consideration for all the situations. While he wants to extend a tendency in one area to another area, he should compare the differences between them and make sure they are the same, including people, physical conditions and so forth. In addition, the arguer should consider whether there exists other means to prevent absenteeism.