Argument165 [飞跃dreams小组] 第四次作业

纳兰馨儿UID: 2437109

TOPIC: ARGUMENT165 - 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."
WORDS: 439          TIME: 00:50:00          DATE: 2008/2/6 16:59:31

The author who write the report on a business magazine wants to demonstrated that the cans that from Promofoods, which caused numerous consumer complaints of side-effect, did not contain poison chemicals. However the statements , in which  the testing result was illustrated, have several faults as follows.

To begin with, it is obviously that there are serious problems in the test , which plays a significant roll in the argument and makes the illustration totally doubtful. First, the test is taken by company itself, which will result in the most beneficial conclusion to Promofoods who might be cheating in some procedure without any evidence to ensure the correct avenues. Possibly all the statistics are fake and maybe there was no testing research at all.　In addition ,granted that the test and the result is a real one without cheating, there are another weak point remains because no evidence is about the sample. No one can avoid thinking that how many samples are taken? Is it enough? Is it representative enough to explain all the products, which may be sold in different area and time around the last year?  It is very possibly that the samples are happened to be the safe ones while most of the questionable was not involved in the test so that the limited extend of the samples can not represent all the goods. Thus, the test provided is unreliable and cannot be a strong evidence to persuade me.

Secondly, the result of the test is unconvincing. The author told us that, due to the experience that  there are eight chemicals most commonly blamed for side-effects that the consumers mentioned. Does it mean that the exception of these chemicals can ensure that there is not any risks? Absolutely not. Probably,  there is a new poison part of the canned food that belongs to none of the eight ones, but be more dangerous than all of them,　which will cause more hurt for people who eat it.  Moreover, the auger implies that because the other three suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods, they are safe for people even it contains in the foods made by Promofoods. It is common sense that the quantity of the chemicals usually determines the effects, which may make safe to dangerous.  And the author just avoid mentioning the significant factor, so it makes the report open to doubt.

To sum up,　the author's statement seems to be logical but with close examination, we find a lot of problems in both the test itself and the conclusion it made, which can only be solved by more evidence and concrete statistics.

lyokaUID: 2451632

TOPIC: ARGUMENT165 - 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."
WORDS: 439          TIME: 00:50:00          DATE: 2008/2/6 16:59:31

The author who writes the report on a business magazine wants to demonstrate that the cans that from Promofoods, which caused numerous consumer complaints of side-effect did not contain poison chemicals. However the statements, in which the testing result was illustrated, have several faults as follows.
              开头可以把问题说得更加详细一些，方便后面论述

To begin with, it is obviously that there are serious problems in the test, which plays a significant role in the argument and makes the illustration totally doubtful. First, the test is taken by company itself, which will result in the most beneficial conclusion to Promofoods who might be cheating in some procedure without any evidence to ensure the correct avenues. Possibly all the statistics are fake and maybe there was no testing research at all. In addition, granted that the test and the result is a real one without cheating, there are another weak point remains (主谓不一致) because no evidence is about the sample. No one can avoid thinking that how many samples are taken. Is it enough? Is it representative enough to explain all the products, which may be sold in different area and time around the last year? (两个问句感觉很有气势地提出了存在的问题，好！) It is very possible that the samples are happened (happened, happen是不及物动词 ) to be the safe ones while most of the questionable ones were not involved in the test so that the limited extend of the samples can not represent all the goods. Thus, the test provided is unreliable and cannot be a strong evidence to persuade me.
              质疑test的过程，包括调查人和样品选择，不过此段可以分成两段，以使重点突出，每段也更紧凑。另外，调查人是一个小问题，不需要论述太多。

Secondly, the result of the test is unconvincing. The author told us that, due to the experience that there are eight chemicals most commonly blamed for side-effects that the consumers mentioned. Does it mean that the exception of these chemicals can ensure that there are not any risks? Absolutely not. Probably, there is a new poison part of the canned food that belongs to none of the eight ones, but be more dangerous than all of them, which will cause more hurt for people who eat it. Moreover, the auger implies that because the other three suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods, they are safe for people even it contains in the foods made by Promofoods. It is common sense that the quantity of the chemicals usually determines the effects, which may make safe to dangerous. And the author just avoids mentioning the significant factor, so it makes the report open to doubt.
              质疑test的结果，包括测试范围和含量多少。此段评论同上。

To sum up, the author's statement seems to be logical but with close examination, we find a lot of problems in both the test itself and the conclusion it made, which can only be solved by more evidence and concrete statistics.
              做出结论，不过感觉略显简单

              文章整体论证角度很到位，只是分段太粗略，以致每段论述不够紧促。而且分段过少，给人的印象是好像内容不够。如果能把论述分得更细致一些会更好。另外在论述过程中最好再注意一下详略以保证重点突出：测试人是小问题就不要论述太多。