Argument38 <米国有米第7次作业> 请指教

aefiterUID: 2134740

TOPIC: ARGUMENT38 - The following memoappeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.

"An innovative treatment has come toour attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schoolsand workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fishconsumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per yearfor the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish canprevent colds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absencesfrom school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritionalsupplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lowerabsenteeism."


Could fish eating be really useful inpreventing cold from happening, and lower absenteeism as the arguer claimed?The argument does not give persuasive evidence and reasoning to support itsclaim. For one thing, the causal relation between fish eating and coldprevention is unidentified; for another, we cannot be sure the real reasonprovided by workers is cold; finally, a substitution by Ichthaid may not beable to act equally effective as fish eating does. Either the three flaws turnthis argument unconvincing.

By mentioning the high consumption of fish,and a low rate of visit to doctors for cold, the arguer conclude fish eatingwill help prevent the happening of cold. However, who has consumed the fish isnot able to be identified in this argument. Could this fish be operated to makemedicine, or other industrial manufactures, the premise that residents in EastMeria eat fish very much is groundless. In addition, even we assume thatresidents have a high intake of fish, the twice-per-year visit for cold treatmentdo not demonstrate the effect of fish eating in preventing cold infection.Perhaps many cold cases are light and most of residents refuse to visitdoctors. Could this be the true case, the conclusion that fish can prevent coldis erroneous.

Furthermore, if we assume the fish eatingdo help residents in East Meria lower the infection rate of colds, it is stillimprudent to arrive at the second conclusion that a low cold infection willrelieve absenteeism. After all, cold is only the reason pretended by workerswho leave their work. If many workers feel cold is a persuasive excuse, andoveruse it even they are not really catching a cold, the conclusion thatpreventing cold will accordingly prevent absenteeism is wrong. Perhaps workersactually do not catch cold very frequently, and thus the effort to lower theopportunity to catch cold will not be useful to lower absenteeism. Because thearguer does not prove that all the cases of absenteeism are caused by cold,this second conclusion cannot be accepted.

Finally, the proposition in the ending ofthe argument, based on the preceding reasoning, is not acceptable, even weacknowledge all the two preceding conclusion are correct. Without making outhow does fish eating help prevent cold infection, a simple substitution byIchthaid may not be as effective as the fish eating. In the first place, thechemicals that functions may be only contained in certain kinds of fish, whichare highly consumed in East Meria; but the production of the nutritionalsupplement do not use this kind of fish. In the second place, the cost ofIchthaid, compared with direct fish eating, may be too exorbitant for ordinaryworkers to buy. If this is true, this supplement may not be widely used so asto lower the absenteeism.

To sum up, the argument is based on thepremise that fish eating is really useful in preventing cold, all workersclaiming catching a cold are real while leave their work, and Ichthaid is aeffective substitution for a high level of fish eating. However, none of thethree premises are convincingly supported. As a result, this argument cannot bepersuasive to us.

ernest81888UID: 2247639

我也定了哦~~~~:hug:

ernest81888UID: 2247639

"An innovative treatment has come toour attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schoolsand workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fishconsumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per yearfor the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish canprevent colds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absencesfrom 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 lowerabsenteeism."

请把提纲列好吧,以后方便复习

Could fish eating be really useful inpreventing cold from happening, and lower absenteeism as the arguer claimed?(最好加一句比如,from what the author argued , it can not make me conviced.)The argument does not give persuasive evidence and reasoning to support itsclaim. For one thing, the causal relation between fish eating and coldprevention is unidentified; for another, we cannot be sure the real reasonprovided by workers is cold; finally, a substitution by Ichthaid may not beable to act equally effective as fish eating does. Either the three flaws turnthis argument unconvincing.

找到3个错误1.吃鱼对预防感冒的因果关系不定 2.我们还不确定是否是因为感冒才会有旷课 3. 即使吃ICHTHAID不一定和吃鱼一样有效.

个人感觉 错误2, 原文有句Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absencesfrom school and work,当然这是commonsense,你可以攻击,WM可能是个特例,但是个人感觉这个攻击力量不大. 同样错误3,原文有句 a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil 鱼油不能等同于吃鱼,的确,不过我觉得写起来比较难写.anyway, keep reading.....

By mentioning the high consumption of fish,and a low rate of visit to doctors for cold, the arguer conclude fish eatingwill help prevent the happening of cold. However, who has consumed the fish isnot able to be identified in this argument. Could this fish be operated to makemedicine, or other industrial manufactures, (+or the apparently high consumption of fish is just relevent to exporting to other region)the premise that residents in EastMeria eat(eating) fish very much is groundless. In addition, even we assume thatresidents have a high intake of fish, the twice-per-year visit for cold treatmentdo not demonstrate the effect of fish eating in preventing cold infection.Perhaps many cold cases are light and most of residents refuse to visitdoctors. Could this be the true case, the conclusion that fish can prevent coldis erroneous.

写的不错,分析的很也有道理



Furthermore, if we assume the fish eatingdo help residents in East Meria lower the infection rate of colds, it is stillimprudent to arrive at the second conclusion that a low cold infection willrelieve absenteeism. After all, cold is (not )only the reason pretended by workerswho leave their work. If many workers feel cold is a persuasive excuse, andoveruse it even they are not really catching a cold, the conclusion thatpreventing cold will accordingly prevent absenteeism is wrong(语气过重改成unconvincing) Perhaps workersactually do not catch cold very frequently, and thus the effort to lower theopportunity to catch cold will not be useful to lower absenteeism. Because thearguer does not prove that all the cases of absenteeism are caused by cold,this second conclusion cannot be accepted.

to attack commonsense is difficult,you should focus on the certain sample like East Meria(个人意见)

Finally, the proposition in the ending ofthe argument, based on the preceding reasoning, is not acceptable, even weacknowledge all the two preceding conclusion are correct. Without making outhow does fish eating help prevent cold infection, a simple substitution byIchthaid may not be as effective as the fish eating. In the first place, thechemicals that functions may be only contained in certain kinds of fish, whichare highly consumed in East Meria; but the production of the nutritionalsupplement do not use this kind of fish. In the second place, the cost ofIchthaid, compared with direct fish eating, may be too exorbitant for ordinaryworkers to buy.(我总觉得不太妥当) If this is true, this supplement may not be widely used so asto lower the absenteeism.

To sum up, the argument is based on thepremise that fish eating is really useful in preventing cold, all workersclaiming catching a cold are real while leave their work, and Ichthaid is aeffective substitution for a high level of fish eating. However, none of thethree premises are convincingly supported. As a result, this argument cannot bepersuasive to us.


结尾段需要加强,为什么不用固定结果呢? 加油,我阿狗也写的不是很好.

aefiterUID: 2134740

感觉ernest进步比我大多了，看来要加油了。