Argument38 Thrive小组第4次作业 个人感觉考试如果这么写很冒险！求拍！谢谢！

vic_rainUID: 2304309

TOPIC: ARGUMENT38 - 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: 390          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-2-24 上午 12:09:12

By citing a study showing eating fish to prevent colds and giving some facts and analysis, the author concludes that daily use of a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil can prevent colds and lower absenteeism. Although this argument seems well presented on the surface, close scrutiny reveals several flaws, which renders it not well reasoned thus unconvincing.

First, whether the citing study's result is reliable is open to doubt. For all we know, the mere fact that people seldom visit doctor does not necessarily indicate that people are truly not sick. It is entirely possible that people are not willing to see doctor for reasons such as not heavy illness, saving money and time and so forth.

Secondly, granting that residents in nearby East Meria seldom get cold indeed, the author unfairly assumes that eating fish can prevent colds. As we have known nothing about the ages, backgrounds and general health of the people involved. If the local residents exercise regularly, eating healthily and never smoke, then their seldom colds have nothing to do with eating fish but a indication of healthy lifestyle.

Thirdly, even if eating fish is beneficial to prevent colds, the author's recommendation of daily use of lchthaid is unjustified. Does it impose some side-effects on people according to the quantity? As no evidence in the argument is offered to eliminate this possibility, the author cannot base on the study to assign such dose to the most people.

Finally, even if the daily use of lchthaid is totally beneficial to most people without any potential harms, the author's conclusion that this would prevent lower absenteeism is highly questionable. The author fails to consider other alternative explanations to absenteeism in schools and workplaces. For all we know, colds are always only excuses for absenteeism. If the students or workers would not like to go to work or go school for the real reasons including hating study, being tired of work, or low-salary, then preteding cold becomes one of the dispensable excuses for absentism while actually they are not sick. Any of these scenarios, if true, without identifying the real cause for absenteeism, preventing colds would not decrease absenteeism as a result.

In sum, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the author must supply evidence that daily eating lchthaid is beneficial to most people without harms. To better evaluate this argument, the author should try to persuade school and workplaces to focus more on identifying the real causes of absenteeism in schools and workplaces.

[ 本帖最后由 vic_rain 于 2008-2-24 00:54 编辑 ]