|0806G-AW小组|第三次作业

Northeast-WindUID: 2408896

38. 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: 551

    论者以一份研究报告说明吃鱼防止感冒，进而认为一种鱼油营养品能防止感冒，所以食用它可以减少感冒提高出勤率。但是，它的逻辑错误使提议不能使人信服。
四个假设站不住脚：
1）假设营养鱼油能和鱼一样有同样的功效，但是不见得。
2）假设感冒的确是矿工旷课的原因。感冒可能只是矿工旷课的借口，不见得能提高出勤率。治好感冒可以找其他患病的借口。
3）假设的感冒的人都上医院治疗。感冒一般感冒不一定看医生，自己治疗。
4）假设当地鱼的消费都用来食用。
即便假设成立，也不能论证研究是可信的：
没有比较对照­——试验控制组（本题），不能说明多吃鱼能防止感冒。
没有比较对照­——试验控制组（外地），不能说明其他地区的人吃鱼也会防止感冒。
The “after all, therefore, because of this” fallacy. 先吃鱼，没有上医院，所以吃预防。

In this memo the speaker concluded that daily use of Ichthaid could prevent colds and absenteeism. The conclusion is chiefly supported by the evidence that a study which reports fish could prevent colds. However, a few assumptions behind the speaker’s demonstration and the study are questionable, for that, the recommendation in this memo is unconvincing.

At least, there are four assumptions are untenable. First of all, the speaker assumes that the function of Ichthaid is equal to fish. Though the Ichthaid is a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, there no elaboration which tells us fish oil is the element to prevent colds, and also, no evidence shows that Ichthaid, as certain components derived from fish oil could take work as same as the fish oil. Even if the fish could really prevent the clods, therefore, no sufficient proof is provided to verify Ichthaid could also do it.

Secondly, the speaker assumes that colds, authentically, are the most frequent reason given for absenteeism. It is possible that colds, as the reason for absenteeism, are excuses which are easy to make and be sanctioned. If so, the efficiency of therapeutic method for colds accomplishes nothing towards the absenteeism. We can enumerate many diseases which could be the reasons for absenteeism, and people could arrive at them.

Thirdly, the speaker assumes that most people who caught colds go to hospital for therapy. Colds, if not severe, could be healed at home by some drugs and good rest; hence it is possible that people who caught colds did not go to hospital to ask for doctors. In that case, the study showed by speaker can not demonstrate that few times for doctors is the equivalent of few times colds. So, the study can not well support the its conclusion that few people in Meria catch colds.

Fourthly, the speaker assumes that high consumption fish are chiefly for eating. It is possible that high consumption fish results from the industrial use, rather than people daily food. Maybe there is a factory which manufactures fish food to sell to all the regions. It is presumptuous to judge that people in Meria east much fish according the high market sales of fish. Of cause, if so, the study fails to support its conclusion.

In addition, even though the speaker’ assumptions above are all true and reliable, the study itself is still problematic. In the study, there is no control group between the eating fish people and non-fish eating in Meria. Furthermore, the study also lacks of the control group between Meria and other areas. Without the comparison in different people within locale and with other areas, the speaker could not believe that eating fish could prevent colds. Simultaneously, it is the “after this, therefore, because of this” fallacy that relation between high consumption fish for eating and few times for doctors, since the two elements have not necessary causal relationship. To be sure, the study is unreliable as the evidence to support the speaker’s recommendation.

In sum, the speaker’s conclusion that Ichthaid could prevent colds and decrease absenteeism in this memo is unconvincing since the statement’s assumptions and the study reports are problematic. If the speaker wants to strongly support his recommendation, he has to verify those assumptions and provide the further precise data of the study.

guomin1437UID: 2411571

38. 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: 551    论者以一份研究报告说明吃鱼防止感冒，进而认为一种鱼油营养品能防止感冒，所以食用它可以减少感冒提高出勤率。但是，它的逻辑错误使提议不能使人信服。四个假设站不住脚：1）假设营养鱼油能和鱼一样有同样的功效，但是不见得。2）假设感冒的确是矿工旷课的原因。感冒可能只是矿工旷课的借口，不见得能提高出勤率。治好感冒可以找其他患病的借口。3）假设的感冒的人都上医院治疗。感冒一般感冒不一定看医生，自己治疗。4）假设当地鱼的消费都用来食用。即便假设成立，也不能论证研究是可信的：没有比较对照­——试验控制组（本题），不能说明多吃鱼能防止感冒。没有比较对照­——试验控制组（外地），不能说明其他地区的人吃鱼也会防止感冒。The “after all, therefore, because of this” fallacy. 先吃鱼，没有上医院，所以吃预防。In this memo the speaker concluded that daily use of Ichthaid could prevent colds and absenteeism. The conclusion is chiefly supported by the evidence that a study which reports fish could prevent colds. However, a few assumptions behind the speaker’s demonstration and the study are questionable, for that, the recommendation in this memo is unconvincing.At least, there are four assumptions are untenable. First of all, the speaker assumes that the function of Ichthaid is equal to fish(that of fish). Though the Ichthaid is a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, there no elaboration which tells us fish oil is the element to prevent colds, and also, no evidence shows that Ichthaid, as certain components derived from fish oil could take work as same as the fish oil. Even if the fish could really prevent the clods, therefore, no sufficient proof is provided to verify Ichthaid could also do it.Secondly, the speaker assumes that colds, authentically, are the most frequent reason given for absenteeism. It is possible that colds, as the reason for absenteeism, are excuses which are easy to make and be sanctioned. If so, the efficiency of therapeutic method for colds accomplishes nothing towards the absenteeism. We can enumerate many diseases which could be the reasons for absenteeism, and people could arrive at them. Thirdly, the speaker assumes that most people who caught colds go to hospital for therapy. Colds, if not severe, could be healed at home by some drugs and good rest; hence it is possible that people who caught colds did not go to hospital to ask for (visit好些不)doctors. In that case, the study showed by speaker can not demonstrate that few times for doctors is the equivalent of few times colds. So, the study can not well support the its conclusion that few people in Meria catch colds. Fourthly, the speaker assumes that high consumption fish are chiefly for eating. It is possible that high consumption fish results from the industrial use, rather than people daily food. Maybe there is a factory which manufactures fish food to sell to all the regions. It is presumptuous to judge that people in Meria east much fish according the high market sales of fish. Of cause, if so, the study fails to support its conclusion.In addition, even though the speaker’ assumptions above are all true and reliable, the study itself is still problematic. In the study, there is no control group between the eating fish people and non-fish eating in Meria. Furthermore, the study also lacks of the control group between Meria and other areas. Without the comparison in different people within locale and with other areas, the speaker could not believe that eating fish could prevent colds. Simultaneously, it is the “after this, therefore, because of this” fallacy that relation between high consumption fish for eating and few times for doctors, since the two elements have not necessary causal relationship. To be sure, the study is unreliable as the evidence to support the speaker’s recommendation.In sum, the speaker’s conclusion that Ichthaid could prevent colds and decrease absenteeism in this memo is unconvincing since the statement’s assumptions and the study reports are problematic. If the speaker wants to strongly support his recommendation, he has to verify those assumptions and provide the further precise data of the study.

写的很好,没得说

[ 本帖最后由 guomin1437 于 2008-2-12 15:39 编辑 ]