argument158 火箭小组第五次作业

babyface1124UID: 2494668

The speaker claims the we do not need restrict the size of garbage sites and the number of homes near them. To support these notions, he mainly sites a statewide stduy of possible harmful effect of garbage sites. Based on series of reasoning and facts, these notions seem to be appealing. However, after close scrutiny, the notions are at least flawed in three critical aspects.

To begin with, one problem of the claims is lies in the survey. The speaker assumes that there is little causul relationship between proximity of homes to garbages and unexplained rashes among people. However, he fail to provide reasonable evidence to support it. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that the people and cites in the survey are insuffient in number and not representative to draw any reliable conclusion. It is equally possible people living in that state are less prone to complain about their uncomfortable sense. Any of the scenario is true, the speaker can not justifiably convince me to accept this claim.

Moreover, speaker also assumes that there is no correlation between the size of garbage sites and people’s health condition based on the report, which shows that slightly higer incidence of rashes among people near the largest trash sites. However, he unfairly equals slight incidence of rashes to no healthy problem. Perhaps, the large trash sites have already invites other deseases such as …..or posed potential harm to people’s health.In addtion, the speaker does not provide any information concerning the comparision between the people near large garbage sites and those do not. Accordingly, this assumption is logically illed.

Even the speaker can substantiate the forgoing assumptions, the notions still have other problems. First, the speaker does not clearly define the extent of’significant health hazard’. Without this important definition, he can not confidently claims that the current systems of garbage does not need adjustment. Besides, in asserting no measures toward the size of such sites and restrictions on the number of homes near the sites, he might overlook other possiblities which will carry negative consequences. The respondents of the statewide study are made up of health people, so the garbage system might pose harm on patients. Also, the unrestricted garbage sites might deteriate the evironment of the state, thus, the business are less inclined to make investment there, which will block the economy development of the state.

In sum, these notions are unpersuasive as it stands. To better bolster the notions, the speaker should provide evidence toprove the reliability of the study or make another study which involve more representative people and sites. The speaker should also show more information concerning the health condition of both people who live near the garbage and those who are not in the state. Finally, it is to be preferred that the speaker substantiates the proposed stragy will not cause negatve effects.