argument165

lisheng19881108UID: 2358622

TOPIC: ARGUMENT165 - The following appeared in a business magazine.

"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods."
WORDS: 488          TIME: 00:30:00         

In the argument, the arguer concludes that the cans of tuna do not contain some chemicals which may lead to some disease. To justify his conclusion, the arguer cites the fact that in examining tested samples of the recalled cans, five most commonly chemicals blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea are not found. In addition, the arguer also points out that the other three suspected chemicals are also found in other kinds of canned foods. However, the argument is unconvincing for some critical fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer fails to prove that the results of tested samples can be equally applied to the whole groups of cans of tuna returned. There is no exact statistic about the number and portion of tested samples in eight million cans of tuna returned. It is entirely that there are just ten cans are selected to be tested which, indeed, do not contains some dangerous chemicals which may pose a health risk. Also it is not known that whether the tested cans are selected randomly which may deeply affect the results of test. Lacking such evidence, the arguer cannot convince me the results of test are statistical reliable.

In the second place, even though there are not five of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for the symptom of dizziness and nausea, the arguer overlooks other factors which may also lead to the same symptom. It is entirely probable that there are some other chemicals which also harm to one's health existing in these cans of tuna. Perhaps these chemicals are seldom known or even have not found by scientists, let alone to be tested. Without ruling out these possible scenarios, the conclusion that the cans are not harmful is open to doubt.

What is more, the argument is relied on the further assumption that three suspected chemicals found in all other kinds of canned foods cannot result in dizziness and nausea. However, the arguer fails to build the causal relationship between the fact that these three chemicals are not found in other kinds of cans and the result that they are not harmful. Perhaps whether these three chemicals can lead to the disease depends on the amount of the chemical. And the chemical in other kinds of canned foods are not enough to cause such disease; on the contrary, the chemical in cans of tuna is far more than other cans that make the consumer have dizziness and nausea. Without other evidence to prove the assumption, the arguer's conclusion that the cans of tuna are not harmful is unwarranted.

To sum up, the argument is not very reasoned. To solidify his assertion, the arguer should provide more concrete evidence to show the study is scientific and reliable. To better assess the conclusion, we should know more information to exclude other chemicals which may also result in such disease and the three suspected chemicals are really not dangerous.

野猪大改造UID: 2484392

In the argument, the arguer concludes that the cans of tuna do not contain some chemicals which may lead to some disease. To justify his conclusion, the arguer cites the fact that in examining tested samples of the recalled cans, five most commonly chemicals blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea are not found. In addition, the arguer also points out that the other three suspected chemicals are also found in other kinds of canned foods. However, the argument is unconvincing for some critical fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer fails to prove that the results of tested samples can be equally applied to the whole groups of cans of tuna returned. There is no exact statistic about the number and portion of tested samples in eight million cans of tuna returned. It is entirely that there are just ten cans are selected to be tested which, indeed, do not contains some dangerous chemicals which may pose a health risk. Also it is not known that whether the tested cans are selected randomly which may deeply affect the results of test. Lacking such evidence, the arguer cannot convince me the results of test are statistical reliable.

In the second place, even though there are not five of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for the symptom of dizziness and nausea, the arguer overlooks other factors which may also lead to the same symptom. It is entirely probable that there are some other chemicals which also harm to one's health existing in these cans of tuna. Perhaps these chemicals are seldom known or even have not found by scientists, let alone to be tested. Without ruling out these possible scenarios, the conclusion that the cans are not harmful is open to doubt.

What is more, the argument is relied on the further assumption that three suspected chemicals found in all other kinds of canned foods cannot result in dizziness and nausea. However, the arguer fails to build the causal relationship between the fact that these three chemicals are not found in other kinds of cans and the result that they are not harmful. Perhaps whether these three chemicals can lead to the disease depends on the amount of the chemical. And the chemical in other kinds of canned foods are not enough to cause such disease; on the contrary, the chemical in cans of tuna is far more than other cans that make the consumer have dizziness and nausea. Without other evidence to prove the assumption, the arguer's conclusion that the cans of tuna are not harmful is unwarranted.

To sum up, the argument is not very reasoned. To solidify his assertion, the arguer should provide more concrete evidence to show the study is scientific and reliable. To better assess the conclusion, we should know more information to exclude other chemicals which may also result in such disease and the three suspected chemicals are really not dangerous.

漏洞都是这篇文章主要的漏洞，论证也不错。字数能在这么短的时间达到将近500，我觉得这篇文章很不错。