Argument38 dganggang(kito) 高频 准时完成533

dganggangUID：2125101

38The 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.'

提纲：感冒不是唯一理由
           吃鱼未必和感冒有必然联系
           E的经验未必能用在W上

In the memo, the author has given us an advice that we should provide a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil named Ichthaid (I) in order to diminish absenteeism. The main reason for the advice is based upon a study reports in East Meria (E) that high fish consumption seems to have a good effect on the treatments of colds.

The memo is well-presented. However, the evidence is far from drawing the conclusion by the author, which makes his argument groundless.

Primarily, the author commits a fallacy to equate the treatment of colds with the lower of the absenteeism. As a matter of fact, the author provides us no other possible factors that may be the excuses for the absences from school and work. That is to say, colds may be one of the reasons for the absenteeism but not the only one that dominates in the phenomenon. Therefore, even if I can help to prevent colds, it has no necessary correlation with the lower of the absenteeism because some possible causes such as other diseases or certain accidents' urgencies can still support the excuses for the absenteeism.

Secondly, the assumption that the author establishes is questionable itself. The mere fact that the fish consumption is very high in E can not be sufficient to support the conclusion that eating much fish can prevent colds. In details, the fact that people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for colds in E has no necessary correlation with the fish consumption. That is to say, the temporal relation of these two phenomena does not ensure that they have the causal relation. Moreover, for our common sense, eating fish or a huge amount of fish has little chances to do with the treatment and there should be other elements that have not been discovered by the reports, which help to reduce the occurrences of the colds. In sum, the reports of E might be put into doubts, which will undermine the assumption that the author uses to infer and thus makes the final suggestion.

Last but not the least, even assuming the reports is convincing and conforming to the truth, however, the experience of E can not be fully fit with the condition of West Meria (W). Even the fish in E can really cure colds, nevertheless, this assumption does not imply that the fish in W have the same functions. Otherwise, the living habits, geological environment or the climate may be totally different in W and E, which can influence the effect of the treatment by eating plenty of fish in W. In short, the assumption might be sound in the case of E, nevertheless, as it is concerned with W, it will possibly be an absolutely different story.

In general, the argument is built upon an assumption that is unsubstantiated, furthermore, the author also makes a logical mistake in the deduction from the assumption. What's more important, the whole inference is far from the final conclusion by the author. Under this circumstance, the author may have to look into the reports again, moreover, try to reconsider his advice and explore the real facts for the existence of the absenteeism in W.