argument165 飞越dreams小组第4次作业

gre_killer_wuUID: 2451830

argument165 飞越dreams小组第4次作业 by gre_killer_wu

Argument 165
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."

字数：295

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. The author seems to presume that only the most commonly blamed eight chemicals causes dizziness and nausea. And the justification about the safeness of the cans is also unpersuasive.

The author fails to consider the possible factors resulting in dizziness and nausea, besides the eight chemicals. It is entirely possible that chemicals out of the eight kinds, which is scant in foods but also blamed for causing the two symptoms, exist in the cans. Or perhaps the tunas used in the can manufacture, are not well preserved before manufactured. Or the tunas might be infected by some kinds of virus or diseases, which have not been detected by the poor detection system. If so, the indication that the cans are safe food, may be just misleading.

Whether the cans are kept save from the five chemicals or not, is also unclear. What the author tells us is that, the five chemicals were not found in the tested cans, after the return of the eight million cans, of course. Are the five chemicals easy to undergo chemical change, even in an air-tight environment? How much time had passed when the company started to test the cans, beginning form the time the cans are ate by consumers? Without ruling out the possibility that the five chemicals had undergone chemical change before tested, the conclusion is reached too hastily.

In conclusion, the argument is not well-reasoned as it stands. To make the argument more effective, the author should convince us that there is no chemical blamed for causing the two symptoms contained in the cans, after their manufacture. The report about the quality of the tunas and the details about the method to preserve the tunas, might be also useful.