Argument165 【0710G-小猪快跑小组】第4次作业 by guangxu

guangxu3559UID: 2311047

Argument 165:
Words: 497      Time: 45 minutes
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the Promofoods' cans did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. In order to prove the conclusion, the arguer cite a fact of chemists from Promofoods  that only three chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea are found in samples of Promofoods' recalled cans. Additionally, the arguer points out that this three chemicals can also be found in all other kinds of canned foods. However, this argument is not persuasive as it stands.

At first, the fact from the chemists of Promofoods can not convince us totally. Without other concrete proof, we have the chance to doubt the correctness and impartiality of the fact. We can not exclude the possibility that the fact is manipulated by the governor of the enterprise. In order to preserve the good reputation among the consumers, though the samples contain all eight chemicals that threat the consumers' health, the chemists make a false report under threats or profits induce from the managers of the enterprise. So just by Promofoods' own experiment result, we can not believe the fact. The arguer must provide more information like a survey result from authority to convince us.

Secondly, the arguer makes a groundless conclusion that omits chemicals that do harm to consumers' health except the eight chemicals. No information is supplied by the arguer to illustrate that no other harmful chemicals are contained in the sample of Promofoods' recalled cans. If the contentents of other harmful chemicals in the cans are very high, the harmful result to consumers are more serious than only one or two kind chemicals of the eight are contained. So there is no reason to omit other harmful chemicals, on if some more proof is given to support it.

Thirdly, the arguer make a false analogy that the three chemicals contained in Promofoods' samples are also found in all other kinds of canned foods to prove its healthy result to consumers. It is very hasty to get the conclusion without any other persuasive information. Though the three chemicals are also found in all other kinds of canned foods, the content of them is mere, which meets the national health standard, while the content of them in Promofoods' canned food has exceeded the standard greatly. Under this condition, how you can guarantee the safety of Promofoods' canned food? So the arguer must supply more information to show that the content of the three chemicals contained in Promofoods' canned food are the same as that are contained in all other kinds of canned foods.

In all, this argument suffers from three fallacies. In order to strengthen its convincing, the arguer has to supply more information to prove the impartiality of the fact from Promofoods and show that no other harmful chemicals are contained in Promofoods' canned foods. In addition, more proof has to provide to support that the content of three chemicals found in Promofoods' food is the same as other foods'.        

Argument 56:
Syllabus:
1.       No information is given to prove the molds of human heads and hands on Kali are used to make life-size clay status. Maybe there are other purposes for these molds, for instance, just a model to memorize some person or an instrument for a play.
2.       The difference of the style between the life-size clay status and miniature status is caused by other reasons.
3.       Very few sculpting tools being found does not mean there are few tools, maybe many of them have been destroyed or have not be found.
4.       We are not convinced that the value of life-size sculpture will decrease while the miniatures’ will increase. No concrete information is supplied to prove this conclusion.