argument38 为我所用第十一次作业

jenniferganUID: 2443583

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: 536          TIME: 00:31:15          DATE: 2008-4-5 11:44:24

According to the memo, the arguer concludes that daily use of lchthaid is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To support his conclusion, the arguer points out that a study repyorts that peopel in nearby East Meria consumption large amount of fish, who visit doctor only once or twice a year for the treatment of colds. So, the arguer comes to the conclusion that eating a substantial amout of fish can prevent colds on the assumption that colds are the most frequently reasons for absences from school and work. In my point of view, a carefule examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is. I will discuss them in turn.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that colds are the most requently rasones for absances from work and school, but he does not provide any data to support his assumption. There is not any evidence to show that colds are the most reasons, perhaps stomachache, headache and fever are more frequent reasons than colds. Only the arguer provide some research data to prove it can the assumption be right. Thus, the absances of work and school cannot reduced from eating more fish.

In addition, even assuming cold is the most reasons for absances, I don't believe the conclusion that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Because the arguer still fails to provide any information about it. Only a survey cannot indicate it. Perhaps it is not because they have eat lots of fish but some other foods that prevent colds. The arguer does not consider the variouties of their food.

Moreover, the result of the survey that the arguer reached is unconvincing. There are many critical fallacies. First, the survey says that the consumption of fish in East Meria is very high, then he asserts that fish can prevent colds. However, the arguer does not offer any other food consumption of East Meria. Maybe other food, for example, meat, whos consumption is higher than fish, how can the arguer get to the conclusion? In this case, the effect maybe aroused by meat. Second, the people visit doctor only once or twice a year cannot indicate the effect of fish. Perhaps the residents in the city are keeping on exercise every day, and their body is healthy. Perhaps the weather there is warm through all the year, people have less chance to suffer from colds. Perhaps the environment there is clear and fresh, bacteria is less than other places, so they get colds less. Perhaps the peopel do not go to visit doctors when they are suffer from colds. Thus, the arguer does not consider so many alternatives which can be the cause of less colds.

In sum, the argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. From what has been discussed above, the arguer should do some research about whether the residents really suffers from colds less than other places in order to strength it. And, he has to prove that colds are the most frequently reasons for absances. What's more, he should redo the survey do eliminat all alternatives that can lead to less colds. Only in this way can the argument be strengthened to be persuasive.