Argument38 [aero作文组] 第14次作业

geyserUID: 2446453

In this memo the arguer asserts that daily use of lchthaid is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. At first glance, the arguer's reasoning seems to be appealing, however, while clearly examining the reasoning, we may find that this conclusion suffers from a lot of fallacies which make it unconvincing and the evidences should be carefully evaluated.

First of all, the arguer's evidence is insufficient to support the conclusion, the arguer make an oversimplified casual relationship between less visiting doctors for the treatment of colds and less possibility of catching cold. It is entirely possible occupants in EM would like to buy drugs themselves or they think cold is a common disease and it does not deserve to be spent time or money on, or perhaps catching cold is only the excuse for asking for leave when it comes to some private problems. Without providing evidences to rule out these possibilities, the reasoning is too fallacious to be believed.

Even if the habitants live in EM really have less cold than people leaving in other places, we cannot conclude that it is according to the high consumption of fish. An alternative assumption is that maybe a local food industry which uses fish as the main material and the products may sell all over the world also contributes to the high consumption of fish. In addition, the arguer fails to consider the possibility that the climate in EM may benefits health, or the habitants like sports very much, therefore people live in EM are less likely to catch cold. Only information such as the healthy condition is collected can the statement be more convincing.

In addition, even though we admit that it is true that there is casual relationship between eating fish and less likely to have cold. The conclusion that eating lchthaid can also have a same effect is unwarranted, the arguer overlooks the possibilities that maybe it is other contains in fish that can prevent people from having colds. In addition, the arguer overlooks the possibility that lchthaid may do some harm to health besides its potential benefits, and the arguer fails to demonstrate lchthaid is suitable for everyone, maybe it has some side effect to a certain group of people. Similarly the recommendation that eating lchthaid can lead to less absenteeism is unwarranted. A biochemical assay on lchthaid and a lasting observation on people eating lchthaid can support or undermine the conclusion of the arguer.

To sum up, we can safely conclude that the argument has several patent flaws, to make it more convincing, the arguer need to consider more factors and provide more evidences to support the casual relationship between lchthaid and less colds. It could be further improved by ruling out the alternative explanations for the supposed casual relationship.

3