argument38 jingjing作业（kito）大家狠拍！

jingjingtousUID??2164820

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 38 - 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."
Outline:
1 the result of the study is unreliable, the author failed to establish a causal relationship between fish consumption in EM and the low frequency of visiting doctor
2 even if the consumption is substantiated, the author cannot further infer that it leads to the low rate of absenteeism
3 a false analogy, the author overlooks the differences between the two areas, it needs more comparison
4 the feasibility of the new treatment, maybe people cannot afford it, maybe it has by-product effects

In this memo, the author recommends residents in West Meria to use Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To support this recommendation the author claims that people in nearby East Meria visit doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. The author further assumes that eating fish can prevent colds and moreover reduce people's absence from school and workplace. However, the argument suffers from several fallacies which undermine its validity.

A threshold problem with the argument involves the study cited by the author to support the assumption that high fish consumption of their residents in East Meria is responsible for the low frequency they visit the doctor. Yet this might not be the case. It is highly possible that the nearest hospital or clinic is distant from East Meria, the traffic is so bad that people are not willing to spend a long journey for cold treatment. Or perhaps they just consider it an insignificant illness. Without ruling out these and other scenarios, the author cannot establish a causal relationship between high fish consumption of East Meria's residents and the low frequency of visiting doctors.

Even assuming that there is a causal relationship between the two sides indeed, the author's inference that the lower rate of seeing doctor contributes to the decline of absenteeism is statistically unreliable. The author provides no evidence that residents in East Meria are seldom absent from school or workplace. Perhaps they have a record of higher absenteeism rate than that in West Meria, or perhaps catching a cold is just one of many excuses for their absence. Without considering these possibilities, the author's conclusion based on this dubious assertion is completely unconvincing.

Another problem with the argument is that the author commits a false analogy. The author's inspection totally based on the new treatment of Ichthaid, which includes some nutritional ingredients derived from fish oil, would have the same effects on patients in West Meria as the fish consumption did on those of East Meria. However, the author neglects some remarkable differences between the two samples. It is entirely possible that people in East Meria have healthier habits on diet and do more exercises. Indeed, they have stronger bodies to immune certain disease such as flu, which never did by West Meria's citizens. Besides, the function of nutrition was under confirming in the future. Perhaps it does not occupy the naturally effective component which was essentially contained in the fish. Absenting at least the comparison between the average health conditions between the two areas' residents, the author's conclusion is highly unreliable.

Finally, the author overlooks some important elements that might affect the feasibility of the new treatment. Maybe the process of abstracting the effectively nutritional chemical from fish is highly costly-let alone about the expense of advertising campaign. Common sense informs us that consumers are reluctant to pay for a dear medicine to cure a slight disease. Even if the supplement was effective for the purpose, whether people are able to consume it as a daily usage without considering it by-product effects is still open to doubt.

All in all, the argument is replete with unreasonable assumptions which render it unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author should provide strong evidence that it is cold, not other scenarios, that made people absent from work or study, and that the innovative treatment is the best effective and feasible method for preventing cold. To better assess the argument, I would need to know whether the nutrition is effective on residents of West Meria as well as it did in East Meria-at least a comparison of people's health situation between the two areas.

[ Last edited by jingjingtous on 2005-12-28 at 23:18 ]

jingjingtousUID??2164820

惨了，没人理我

[ Last edited by jingjingtous on 2005-12-28 at 23:28 ]

hzyj0322UID??2155800

我觉得ARG都差不多,主要就是模版,观点别太离谱就好,我一会给你看看啊，今天憋ISSUE36怎么都没思路了~

hzyj0322UID??2155800

In this memo, the author recommends residents in West Meria to use Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To support this recommendation the author claims that people in nearby East Meria visit doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. The author further assumes that eating fish can prevent colds and moreover reduce people's absence from school and workplace. However, the argument suffers from several fallacies which undermine its validity.

A threshold problem with the argument involves the study cited by the author to support the assumption that high fish consumption of their residents in East Meria is responsible for the low frequency they visit the doctor. Yet this might not be the case. It is highly possible that the nearest hospital or clinic is distant from East Meria, the traffic is so bad that people are not willing to spend a long journey for cold treatment. Or perhaps they just consider it an insignificant illness. Without ruling out these and other scenarios, the author cannot establish a causal relationship between high fish consumption of East Meria's residents and the low frequency of visiting doctors.

Even assuming that there is a causal relationship between the two sides indeed, the author's inference that the lower rate of seeing doctor contributes to the decline of absenteeism is statistically unreliable. The author provides no evidence that residents in East Meria are seldom absent from school or workplace. Perhaps they have a record of higher absenteeism rate than that in West Meria, or perhaps catching a cold is just one of many excuses for their absence. Without considering these possibilities, the author's conclusion based on this dubious assertion is completely unconvincing.

Another problem with the argument is that the author commits a false analogy. The author's inspection totally based on the new treatment of Ichthaid, which includes some nutritional ingredients derived from fish oil, would have the same effects on patients(怎么出现病人了呢？感觉这个药是用于平时保健的，就象吃鱼一样，所以说病人感觉不够贴题) in West Meria as the fish consumption did on those of East Meria. However, the author neglects some remarkable differences between the two samples. It is entirely possible that people in East Meria have healthier habits on diet and do more exercises（既然要比较药和鱼那就说药和鱼的区别，这里锻炼身体好象跟药，跟鱼都没有什么关系）. Indeed, they have stronger bodies to immune certain disease such as flu, which never did by West Meria's citizens. Besides, the function of nutrition was under confirming in the future. Perhaps it does not occupy the naturally effective component which was essentially contained in the fish. （这个分析就很恰当，比较药和鱼）Absenting at least the comparison between the average health conditions between the two areas' residents, the author's conclusion is highly unreliable.

Finally, the author overlooks some important elements that might affect the feasibility of the new treatment. Maybe the process of abstracting the effectively nutritional chemical from fish is highly costly-let alone about the expense of advertising campaign. Common sense informs us that consumers are reluctant to pay for a dear medicine to cure a slight disease. Even if the supplement was effective for the purpose, whether people are able to consume it as a daily usage without considering it by-product effects is still open to doubt. （这个观点我没想到过，我觉得挺新颖哈）
All in all, the argument is replete with unreasonable assumptions which render it unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author should provide strong evidence that it is cold, not other scenarios, that made people absent from work or study, and that the innovative treatment is the best effective and feasible method for preventing cold. To better assess the argument, I would need to know whether the nutrition is effective on residents of West Meria as well as it did in East Meria-at least a comparison of people's health situation between the two areas.

就是觉得3 a false analogy, the author overlooks the differences between the two areas, it needs more comparison,这个说的有点问题,提纲说比较两个地区,文章中TS好象是比较药和鱼,然后既说地区差异又说药鱼差异,我被CONFUSED的了