"为我所用"小组第十一次作业argument38

rienziUID: 2402391

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: 472          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-4-6 18:06:38



    The arguer recommends the citizens of West Meria to take daily dose of lchthaid to prevent colds and to reduce absenteeism. In order to support this judgment, he presents the result of a study report from a nearby city called East Meria and then explains it as an evidence. But through careful scrutiny of his speciously cognitive discussion, some fatal fallacies can be picked out which can lead his conclusion to a failure.
    Firstly, the arguer quotes the study which reports that people in nearby East Meria suffers fewer colds, which happen only once or twice, because fish consumption there is very high. I think in this study, the two phenomena do not  have a cause-and-effect relationship. Some other factors can low the colds of citizens their. For example, a better custom to prevent cold in their everyday life, high frequency physical exercises which can strengthen the immunity of people there and so on. The arguer does not explain why high consumption of fish can cause low frequency of colds. Even more, the consumption of fish there may not due to the alimentary habbits of citizens there. Imagine that some food processing factories make these fish into food products and sell them to other cities. In a word, the study fails to support the conclusion of the arguer.
    Secondly, even if eating fish can prevent colds is true to citizens of East Meria, it is highly likely that the same method can not take the same effect in West Meria. Given that eating habbits in both the two cities are not presented by the arguer, this fallacy is not an easy one for us to debate. But it do exists.
    Thirdly, the arguer mentions that colds are the most important reason ofr absenteeism in schools and workplaces in West Meria but he does not give us any details of data about this judgment. Where did the arguer get this judgment or what led he to make this conclusion? Many other problems can also cause absences. A survey should be done and the statistical data should be worked out to make clear if the reason is factual or not.
    Fourthly, the arguer suggests the citizens to take lchthaid to prevent colds but fails to explain the real effect of this drug. Tentatively, we can suppose that eating fish can prevent colds is a true axiom, but which parts of the bodies of fish fulfills the effect? It is possible that lchthaid, which is derived from fish oil, can not provide the proper gradient which can prevent colds among people. In this case, the suggestion will fail.
    Given the discussion above, the arguer has made many fallacies while discussing to support his conclusion. More factors should be concerned and more survey should be done to support the arguer's conclusion or make him discard it.

jenniferganUID: 2443583

The arguer recommends the citizens of West Meria to take daily dose of lchthaid to prevent colds and to reduce absenteeism. In order to support this judgment, he presents the result of a study report from a nearby city called East Meria and then explains it as an evidence. But through careful scrutiny of his speciously cognitive discussion, some fatal fallacies can be picked out which can lead his conclusion to a failure.

Firstly, the arguer quotes the study which reports that people in nearby East Meria suffers fewer colds, which happen only once or twice, because fish consumption there is very high. I think in this study, the two phenomena do not  have a cause-and-effect relationship. Some other factors can low the colds of citizens their. For example, a better custom to prevent cold in their everyday life, high frequency physical exercises which can strengthen the immunity of people there and so on. The arguer does not explain why high consumption of fish can cause low frequency of colds. Even more, the consumption of fish there may not due to the alimentary habbits of citizens there. Imagine that some food processing factories make these fish into food products and sell them to other cities. In a word, the study fails to support the conclusion of the arguer.

    Secondly, even if eating fish can prevent colds is true to citizens of East Meria, it is highly likely that the same method can not take the same effect in West Meria. Given that eating habbits in both the two cities are not presented by the arguer, this fallacy is not an easy one for us to debate. But it do exists.
    Thirdly, the arguer mentions that colds are the most important reason ofr(for) absenteeism in schools and workplaces in West Meria but he does not give us any details of data about this judgment. Where did the arguer get this judgment or what led he to make this conclusion? Many other problems can also cause absences. 这里的论证可以再深入一点A survey should be done and the statistical data should be worked out to make clear if the reason is factual or not.
    Fourthly, the arguer suggests the citizens to take lchthaid to prevent colds but fails to explain the real effect of this drug. Tentatively, we can suppose that eating fish can prevent colds is a true axiom, but which parts of the bodies of fish fulfills the effect? It is possible that lchthaid, which is derived from fish oil, can not provide the proper gradient which can prevent colds among people. In this case, the suggestion will fail.
    Given the discussion above, the arguer has made many fallacies while discussing to support his conclusion. More factors should be concerned and more survey should be done to support the arguer's conclusion or make him discard it.

找得错误都对了，但是论证都不够深入，还有其他可能性没有提到哦～