Argu38 [shining sep作文组]

zeelichUID: 2194744

题目：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."
字数：509          用时：0:27:25          日期：2006-8-13

In this argument tha arguer recommends that residents lived in West Meria should take lchthaid daily to prevent colds which was frequently used as excuses for absences from school and work and hence lower absenteeism. To support this recommendation the arguer cites that a study held in neraby East Merea revealed that people there who eat lots of fishes has a low frequency of visiting the doctor for treatment of colds. Close scrutiny of the evidence, however, reveals that it could lend little credible support to the arguer's advocation and therefore renders the argument unpervasive as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer provides no firm evidence to demonstrate that the lower proportion in East Meria of visiting the doctor for curing colds would attribute to the fact that residents there consumes more fishes. Differencies, such as climate, weather condition, living environment and the forth, between East Meria and West Meria would to some degree have more or less affects on residents' healthy conditions. Or perhaps the constitutions of the two town's residents vary that people in West Meria would be easier to catch a cold. Thus, without considering and ruling out these and other possibilities, the arguer can not convince me that by eating more fishes could people keep from suffering colds.

Secondly, even if eating more fishes would help prevent colds, the aruger unfairly assumes that eating a nutitional supplement, lchthaid, derived from fish oil would have the same effect. It is entirely possible that other organ besides the fish oil would be effective to prevent colds. Moreover, the arguer provides no evidence to show that the nutitional supplement would have no byproduct. Perhaps by taking this complement new symptons would be engendered which could be worse than colds. Hence, the claim that lchthaid would be efficient in preventing colds is unsound based on vague assumptions.

Thirdly, the arguer too hasty to assume that cold would be the reason for absences from school in West Meria. Perhaps the traffic condition is so poor that people have to travel a long distance or wait for more time to go to work or school. Or perhaps other ailment, rather than colds, would be excuses for the absences. Each of these scenarios would undermine the arguer's assertion and make the recommendation unconvincing.

Finally, even if cold is the main reason for absences in West Meria, the arguer overlooks other possible treatment in coping with the colds besides eating lchthaid. Increasing more clinics, inventing a new medicine or even taking more clothes would help preventing colds. Hence, the arguer's advocation is dubious at best.

In sum, the recommendation is fraught with logical flaws and untenable. To better support it the arguer must provide clear evidence that conditions between East Meria and West Meria would be similar and eating fishes would do help preventing colds. Besides, more information about the reason for absences from work and school in West Meria is needed to justify the arguer's conclusion, and no other methods would be effective enough to supplant lchthaid in lower colds rates.

fl03chjjUID: 2160826

Argu38 [shining sep作文组]

题目：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."
字数：509          用时：0:27:25          日期：2006-8-13

In this argument tha(the) arguer recommends that residents lived in West Meria should take lchthaid daily (什么意思)to prevent colds which was frequently used as excuses for absences from school and work and hence lower absenteeism. To support this recommendation the arguer cites that a study held in neraby East Merea revealed that people there who eat lots of fishes has(have) a low frequency of visiting the doctor for treatment of colds. Close scrutiny of the evidence, however, reveals that it could lend little credible support to the arguer's advocation and therefore renders the argument unpervasive as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer provides no firm evidence to demonstrate that the lower proportion in East Meria of visiting the doctor for curing colds would attribute to the fact that residents there consumes(复数形式) more fishes. Differencies, such as climate, weather condition, living environment and the forth, between East Meria and West Meria would to some degree have more or less affects on residents' healthy conditions. Or perhaps the constitutions of the two town's residents vary that people in West Meria would be easier to catch a cold. Thus, without considering and ruling out these and other possibilities, the arguer can not convince me that by eating more fishes could people keep from suffering colds.

Secondly, even if eating more fishes would help prevent colds, the aruger unfairly assumes that eating a nutitional（nutritional） supplement, lchthaid, derived from fish oil would have the same effect. It is entirely possible that other organ(这个说得不明确) besides the fish oil would be effective to prevent colds. Moreover, the arguer provides no evidence to show that the nutitional supplement would have no byproduct. Perhaps by taking this complement new symptoms would be engendered which could be worse than colds. Hence, the claim that lchthaid would be efficient in preventing colds is unsound based on vague assumptions.

Thirdly, the arguer too hasty to assume that cold would be the reason for absences from school in West Meria. Perhaps the traffic condition is so poor that people have to travel a long distance or wait for more time to go to work or school. (如果是这样也不用它做excuse啦)Or perhaps other ailment, rather than colds, would be excuses for the absences. Each of these scenarios would undermine the arguer's assertion and make the recommendation unconvincing.（这一段感觉没有说服力）
Finally, even if cold is the main reason for absences in West Meria, the arguer overlooks other possible treatment in coping (to cope)with the colds besides eating lchthaid. Increasing more clinics, inventing a new medicine or even taking more clothes would help preventing colds. Hence, the arguer's advocation is dubious at best.

In sum, the recommendation is fraught with logical flaws and untenable. To better support it the arguer must (改should吧)Sample Textprovide clear evidence that conditions between East Meria and West Meria would be similar and eating fishes would do help preventing colds. Besides, more information about the reason for absences from work and school in West Meria is needed to justify the arguer's conclusion, and no other methods would be effective enough to supplant lchthaid in lower colds rates.

总得说来写得都几好的~就是倒数第三段没有什么说服力。改一下supporting detail吧

[ 本帖最后由 fl03chjj 于 2006-8-15 17:20 编辑 ]

zeelichUID: 2194744

In this argument the arguer recommends that residents lived in West Meria should take lchthaid regularly to prevent colds which was frequently used as excuses for absences from school and work and hence lower absenteeism. To support this recommendation the arguer cites that a study held in neraby East Merea revealed that people there who eat lots of fishes have a low frequency of visiting the doctor for treatment of colds. Close scrutiny of the evidence, however, reveals that it could lend little credible support to the arguer's advocation and therefore renders the argument unpervasive as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer provides no firm evidence to demonstrate that the lower proportion in East Meria of visiting the doctor for curing colds would attribute to the fact that residents there consumemore fishes. Differencies, such as climate, weather condition, living environment and the forth, between East Meria and West Meria would to some degree have more or less affects on residents' healthy conditions. Or perhaps the constitutions of the two town's residents vary that people in West Meria would be easier to catch a cold. Thus, without considering and ruling out these and other possibilities, the arguer can not convince me that by eating more fishes could people keep from suffering colds.

Secondly, even if eating more fishes would help prevent colds, the aruger unfairly assumes that eating a nutritional supplement, lchthaid, derived from fish oil would have the same effect. It is entirely possible that other materials besides the fish oil would be effective to prevent colds. Moreover, the arguer provides no evidence to show that the nutitional supplement would have no byproduct. Perhaps by taking this complement new symptoms would be engendered which could be worse than colds. Hence, the claim that lchthaid would be efficient in preventing colds is unsound based on vague assumptions.

Thirdly, the arguer too hasty to assume that cold would be the reason for absences from school in West Meria. Perhaps people in West Meria often suffer from traffic jams for the reason that the design of the roads is so poor. Or perhaps other ailment, rather than colds, would be excuses for the absences. Each of these scenarios would undermine the arguer's assertion and make the recommendation unconvincing.

Finally, even if cold is the main reason for absences in West Meria, the arguer overlooks other possible treatment to cope with the colds besides eating lchthaid. Increasing more clinics, inventing a new medicine or even taking more clothes would help preventing colds. Hence, the arguer's advocation is dubious at best.

In sum, the recommendation is fraught with logical flaws and untenable. To better support it the arguer should provide clear evidence that conditions between East Meria and West Meria would be similar and eating fishes would do help preventing colds. Besides, more information about the reason for absences from work and school in West Meria is needed to justify the arguer's conclusion, and no other methods would be effective enough to supplant lchthaid in lower colds rates.

呵呵，谢谢修改啦

flycc28UID: 2164453

In this argument thathe arguer recommends that residents lived in West Meria should take lchthaid daily to prevent colds which was frequently used as excuses for absences from school and work and hence lower absenteeism指什么?. To support this recommendation the arguer cites that a study held in neraby East Merea revealed that people there who eat lots of fishes has a low frequency of visiting the doctor for treatment of colds. Close scrutiny of the evidence, however, reveals that it could lend little credible support to the arguer's advocation and therefore renders the argument unpervasive as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer provides no firm evidence to demonstrate that the lower proportion in East Meria of visiting the doctor for curing colds would attribute to the fact that residents there consumes more fishes. Differencies, such as climate, weather condition, living environment and the forth, between East Meria and West Meria would to some degree have more or less affects on residents' healthy conditions. Or perhaps the constitutions of the two town's residents vary that people in West Meria would be easier to catch a cold. Thus, without considering and ruling out these and other possibilities, the arguer can not convince me that by eating more fishes could people keep from suffering colds.这段要说吃鱼不能得到少感冒,因为东,西有些差异,这些差异会对身体状况造成影响,所以就不能说吃鱼能少感冒.这样推理似乎有些牵强,怎么也得说一下鱼得作用吧.

Secondly, even if eating more fishes would help prevent colds, the aruger unfairly assumes that eating a nutitional supplement, lchthaid, derived from fish oil would have the same effect. It is entirely possible that other organ besides the fish oil would be effective to prevent colds. Moreover, the arguer provides no evidence to show that the nutitional supplement would have no byproductside-effect. Perhaps by taking this complement new symptons would be engendered which could be worse than colds. Hence, the claim that lchthaid would be efficient in preventing colds is unsound based on vague assumptions.

Thirdly, the argueris too hasty to assume that cold would be the reason for absences from school in West Meria. Perhaps the traffic condition is so poor that people have to travel a long distance or wait for more time to go to work or school. Or perhaps other ailment, rather than colds, would be excuses for the absences. Each of these scenarios would undermine the arguer's assertion and make the recommendation unconvincing.

Finally, even if cold is the main reason for absences in West Meria, the arguer overlooks other possible treatment in coping with the colds besides eating lchthaid. Increasing more clinics, inventing a new medicine or even taking more clothes would help preventing colds. Hence, the arguer's advocation is dubious at best.or at least?

In sum, the recommendation is fraught with logical flaws and untenable. To better support it the arguer must provide clear evidence that conditions between East Meria and West Meria would be similar and eating fishes would do help preventing colds. Besides, more information about the reason for absences from work and school in West Meria is needed to justify the arguer's conclusion, and no other methods would be effective enough to supplant lchthaid in lower colds rates.

建议文章写完后先放word里检查一下语法错误,其实这点自己也做得不好,以后注意就很快会改掉.另外第一段提出了EAST和WEST得不同,自己发现之前完全没注意到这个不同,之前改大家得也都没发现这个错误,赞一下~~

kito9695UID: 209685

发帖格式错误，请参照置顶的发帖格式扫盲自己动手修改~

zeelichUID: 2194744

这段要说吃鱼不能得到少感冒,因为东,西有些差异,这些差异会对身体状况造成影响,所以就不能说吃鱼能少感冒.这样推理似乎有些牵强,怎么也得说一下鱼得作用吧.

呵呵，关于这个，是想强调是由于其他原因如体质和天气能降低感冒的发生而不是因为吃鱼