Argument38（12月作文高强组——好好学习，天天作文）

一月一号UID: 2148376

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 450          TIME: 0:44:00          DATE: 2006-12-14

The argument above is not persuasive as it stands. The not established relationship between the consumption of fish and the getting cold, the haste generation from East Meria(EM) to West Meria and the assumption that the lcthaid would be effective as fish make this recommendation unpersuasive.
The assumed cause and result relationship between the consumption of fish in EM and the time of it people getting cold is unwarranted. There is not any information and materials to indicate that the high consumption of fish would be helpful to prevent cold. There are myriads of other factors can contribute the low rate of getting cold, like warm weather in EM. Thus though this two incidents happened at the same time, we cannot conclude that it is the high consumption that prevent cold.
Besides, the false analogy is another fallacy the arguer commits. Given that the high consumption can helpful to prevent cold, there is no guarantee that the number of people getting cold in WM would decrease as the author assumes. We do not know the weather condition and the people's health quality in these two places. Even if eating fish can help to prevent the chance of getting cold, the bad weather should also cause cold. There even may be flu in ME and maybe the medicine can hardly prevent this, and how can we expect that only eating fish can decrease the number of people getting cold in WE.
Furthermore, there is also no guarantee that the lcthaid, which is a supplement derived from fish oil, would exert same effects on human. There is no any indication in the argument that the effective components of fish to prevent cold are its oil. Thus, it is so curious that the author recommends people take lcthaid to prevent clod.
At last, the assumption is that because the number of people getting cold decrease, the absenteeism in school and workplaces would decrease. Even if the consumption of fish can prevent cold and number of people getting cold in WE decrease, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, if dose not follow that the number of absenteeism would decrease, though the colds are the reason most frequently given for absences. As the cold is the perpetual perfect excuse for absenteeism, it is likely that people who do not have a cold would acclaim cold as a excuse. As a result, it is hard to conclude that the rate of absenteeism would decrease in WE.
In sum , this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Due its many logical fallacies, we hard would believe the author’s recommendation of lcthaid to help decrease the number of people absent from school and work in ME.  

argument 没有限时成功，呜呜~~~~~

waidswUID: 2256074

The argument above is not persuasive as it stands. The not established relationship between the consumption of fish and the getting cold, the haste generation from East Meria(EM) to West Meria and the assumption that the lcthaid would be effective as fish make this recommendation unpersuasive.（很不错，但感觉有点重复，用because of。。。可能会更好）



The assumed cause and result （casual/cause and effect）relationship between the consumption of fish in EM and the time of it people getting cold is unwarranted. There is not any information and materials to indicate that the high consumption of fish would be helpful to prevent cold. There are myriads of other factors can contribute the low rate of getting cold, like warm weather in EM. Thus though this (these) two incidents happened at the same time, we cannot conclude that it is the high consumption that prevent cold.



Besides, the false analogy is another fallacy the arguer commits. Given that the high consumption can helpful to prevent cold, there is no guarantee that the number of people getting cold in WM would decrease as the author assumes. We do not know the weather condition and the people's health quality in these two places. Even if eating fish can help to prevent the chance of getting cold, the bad weather should also cause cold. There even may be flu in ME and maybe the medicine can hardly prevent this, and how can we expect that only eating fish can decrease the number of people getting cold in WE.(感觉这点有些牵强，如果有效果的话，就算天气不好不还是可以预防嘛，后来怎么又说到medicine了，有什么关系吗)

Furthermore, there is also no guarantee that the lcthaid, which is a supplement derived from fish oil, would exert same effects on human. There is no any indication in the argument that the effective components of fish to prevent cold are its oil. Thus, it is so curious（premature?） that the author recommends people take lcthaid to prevent clod.(这句话什么意思？)



At last, the assumption is that because the number of people getting cold decrease（decreases）, the absenteeism in school and workplaces would decrease. Even if the consumption of fish can prevent cold and number of people getting cold in WE decrease, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, if dose not follow that the number of absenteeism would decrease, though the colds are the reason most frequently given for absences. As the cold is the perpetual perfect excuse for absenteeism, it is likely that people who do not have a cold would acclaim cold as a excuse. As a result, it is hard to conclude that the rate of absenteeism would decrease in WE.（觉得在论述一下为什么不能减少缺席更好，譬如说人们可以找其他理由，或是人们有别的事情）


In sum , this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Due（to？） its many logical fallacies, we hard would believe the author’s recommendation of lcthaid to help decrease the number of people absent from school and work in ME.  
第一次显示没有成功没什么，我看过有不少人到最后才限时的，你还有时间啊。 感觉你句型很丰富，但论证稍显不足，可以抓住几点，深入论证，可能会更好。还有一点，你忽略了看病少感冒就少这一点错误。