argument165 [7\8\9\10]第199次作业

野猪大改造UID: 2484392

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: 322          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-8-9 16:50:35

In this argument, the author concludes that the cans which were returned for testing did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. Although the reasoning is appealing at first glance, I find it is flawed after careful examination. This argument contains several fallacies which are problematic.

The first problem in this argument is that the author fails to provide any information to substantiate the assumption that the samples are representative of all the cans. It is entirely possible that the sample is incomplete and thus be lack of creditability. In a word, unless the sample covers a range of all the types of cans which were returned, and the amount is large enough to be representative, the author cannot make any sound assumption after all.

Even assuming the sample is representative, the author also makes an unfair assumption that there are no chemical which may lead to the symptoms of dizziness and nausea except for the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea. While the author rests on no evidence to make this assumption. Thus, it is entirely possible that there is another uncommon chemical can contribute to the symptoms of dizziness and nausea.  To make a credible assumption, the author should exclude this possibility which may weaken the logic of this argument.

Even if the author exclude this possibility, the author also rests on the fact that the chemicals did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods to justify the conclusion. However, the author provides no information regarding the amount of three chemicals used in other foods, or whether these three chemicals are suitable to be used in Promofoods. It is very possible that the amount of three chemicals used in other foods are so little that it does no harm to consumers, while the amount of three chemicals used in Promofoods is so much that it cause symptoms of dizziness and nausea. Moreover, it is equally possible that the three chemicals can be used in other foods except for Promofoods.

In sum, this argument has several fallacies that are open to doubt. To justify the assumption, the author had better provide more information regarding how the test was conducted. To better evaluate this argument, the author should find out whether there is no chemical which may lead to the symptoms of dizziness and nausea except for the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, and the amount of three chemicals used in other foods are the same with the amount used in Promofoods.