ARGUMENT 187 0806GStrive小组第四次作业 forandom

forandomUID: 2449233

This part of article concludes that in order to prevent depression, it is necessary for all people in United States to consume more fish and thus their diets would have a drastic change. To support this conclusion, the arguer points out that fish are usually abundant in omega-3 fatty acids that play a key role in mental health. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless this conclusion is.

First of all, there is no adequate evidence to prove that the omega-3 fatty acids have the effectiveness to prevent depression in three respects. Firstly, the arguer makes a 偷换概念 mistake by equating mental health with depression in the process of inciting the two scientists' suggestion. Secondly, it is a fatal mistake to choose the control group consisted of the saturated fat and the polyunsaturated fat which both are compound. It is likely that polyunsaturated fat contains other substance that has effectiveness to prevent depression. Thirdly, it is ridiculous to compare the incidence of depression between our ancestors and us, because it is impossible to get the statistical data about the healthy status of our ancestors.


In addition, even if the omega-3 fatty acids have such effectiveness to prevent depression, the arguer's assertion that consuming more fish can prevent depression is still unwarranted. Firstly, as the article says, the omega-3 fatty acids are found in some fish and fish oils, but that dose not mean these substances are contained in all kinds of fish and in the fish that consumed in Japan and Taiwan. Secondly, there is lack of statistical information to show the different incidence of depression in Taiwan, Japan and US. Thirdly, there are sorts of reasons causing depression such as individual condition, work burden, and social pressure. Obviously the arguer neglects such reasons.

Finally, even if consuming more fish can prevent depression, the suggestion that all people in the United States should eat more fish is not convincing. Firstly, it is unfeasible for all people in US to increase their consumption of fish due to individual's preference. Secondly, there is no enough evidence show that depression is widely popular among Americans. Thirdly, different people should take different measures to cope with depression.

In sum, this argument is convincing as it stands. To strengthen it the arguer must provide better evidence that the omega-3 fatty acids indeed have the effectiveness to prevent depression. And to better evaluate the recommendation, I would need more information about whether fish are generally abundant in the omega-3 fatty acids, and the information about the incidence of depression in United States.

[ 本帖最后由 forandom 于 2008-3-9 11:56 编辑 ]