.

JianchuanUID: 2121431

.

extensionUID: 2189820

Based on some study reported in nearby East Maria concerning about (不用加about)fish consumption, the author of this argument recommends the daily use of lchthaid. To support this argument, the author also cites evidence such as the medical use of fish. However, close scrutiny reveals that the evidence provided here is weak and does not lend sufficient support to reach the conclusion; the logic of this argument is problematic in several aspects as well.Sample Text

To begin with, this argument lies behind the implicit premise that the absenteeism is high in West Meria (WM) and should be reduced. However, no evidence was shown to prove this point. If the absenteeism is low in WM already, it seems like that there is no necessity to put effort to reduce absenteeism.

Given the problem of absenteeism should get attention, the author makes further assumption that people absent from work are really suffering from cold. In fact, the cold might be only an excuse, which is so common, to get rid of (?不干了么?shirk之类的更好吧)job. If so, no matter how healthy people in WM get, the absenteeism rate will not decrease at all.

Even if the previous two assumptions were substantiated, the evidence provides (provided)here to adduce the conclusion is still very weak. First, since the study was conducted in East Meria (EM), I have reason to question the credibility of the conclusion from the study in WM. As we have known, besides the habit of food, people who live in different areas diffentiate with each other in several aspects, for example, climate, or ecological conditions, or living standards. (首先, differentiate with错了,再有,好象句子有问题, 人们的不同怎么会是climate和ecological conditions 呢)Without ruling out these possible factors affecting the health of people, it will be hasty to believe the use of fish in keeping healthy.

Second, the author unwarrantedly assumes that the low rate EM people visiting doctors(是不是想用独立主格结构啊?) is due to the large consumption of fish. Since there is no obvious relationship between the two facts, the speaker should have provided further argument to support his point. Additionally, the absenteeism rate in EM was not mentioned in this argument, which serves to further undermine the reliability of the conclusion drawn here.

Third, assuming all the above mentioned assumption were substantiated, there is little evidence to convince us that the daily use of lchthaid will serve to reduce colds with the mere fact that lchthaid was derived from fish oil. It is even not certain that it is the fish oil that reduces the colds. To justify this point, the author must show more compelling evidence demonstrating the relationship between the low rate of colds and the lchthaid.

All in all, this argument is based on several critically unwarranted assumptions and the evidence provided here is not significant enough to prove the credibility of the conclusion. Thus it is totally untenable. To justify the conclusion, the author should first substantiate the assumptions discussed above, and prove the effect of lchthaid is valid and universal. To better evaluate this argument, I need additional information about the real reason on the absenteeism of WM.


整体感觉, 思路很清晰, 句子衔接也很好. 不过第一点怎么就分了三段, 是不是字数有点多啦:)

可能有些 finding faults 吧. 不过整体感觉不错.

elvazhang1022UID: 208363

是fault-finding吧

elvazhang1022UID: 208363

即吹毛求疵

elvazhang1022UID: 208363

Based on some study reported in nearby East Maria concerning about fish consumption, the author of this argument recommends the daily use of lchthaid. To support this argument, the author also cites evidence such as the medical use of fish. However, close scrutiny reveals that the evidence provided here is weak and does not lend sufficient support to reach the conclusion; the logic of this argument is problematic in several aspects as well.（还是喜欢这种稍微简洁些的开头）

To begin with, this argument lies behind the implicit premise that the absenteeism is high in West Meria (WM) and should be reduced. However, no evidence was shown to prove this point. If the absenteeism is low in WM already, it seems like that there is no necessity to put effort to reduce absenteeism.

Given the problem of absenteeism should get attention, the author makes further assumption that people absent from work are really suffering from cold. In fact, the cold might be only an excuse, which is so common, to get rid of job（这个和偷懒不上班不是一个意思吧）. If so, no matter how healthy people in WM get, the absenteeism rate will not decrease at all.

Even if the previous two assumptions were substantiated, the evidence provides here to adduce the conclusion is still very weak. First, since the study was conducted in East Meria (EM), I have every good reason to question the credibility of the conclusion from the study in WM. As we have known, besides the habit of food, people who live in different areas differentiate（该词是区分的意思......直接说are different from不就完了吗？） with each other in several aspects, for example, climate, or ecological conditions, or living standards. Without ruling out these possible factors affecting the health of people, it will be hasty to believe the use of fish in keeping healthy.

Second, the author unwarrantedly assumes that the low rate EM people visiting doctors is due to the large consumption of fish. Since there is no obvious relationship between the two facts, the speaker should have provided further argument to support his point. Additionally, the absenteeism rate in EM was not mentioned in this argument, which serves to further undermine the reliability of the conclusion drawn here.

Third, assuming all the above mentioned assumption were substantiated, there is little evidence to convince us that the daily use of lchthaid will serve to reduce colds with the mere fact that lchthaid was derived from fish oil. It is even not certain that it is the fish oil that reduces the colds. To justify this point, the author must show more compelling evidence demonstrating the relationship between the low rate of colds and the lchthaid.

All in all, this argument is based on several critically unwarranted assumptions and the evidence provided here is not significant enough to prove the credibility of the conclusion. Thus it is totally untenable. To justify the conclusion, the author should first substantiate the assumptions discussed above, and prove the effect of lchthaid is valid and universal. To better evaluate this argument, I need additional information about the real reason on the absenteeism of WM.

赞一个！这篇已经很不错了哈！

wish you good luck tomorrow！