argument38 米国有米第七次作业

merryjeanUID: 2243650

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."

我们注意到一种保证可以显著减少学校和工作岗位的缺席的革新疗法。一项研究报告说在附近的East Meria，鱼的消费量很高，那里的人们每年因为治感冒而去看医生的次数只有一或两次。显然，吃较大量的鱼可以预防感冒。由于感冒是学校和单位缺席的最常见原因，我们建议每天服用Ichthaid，一种从鱼油中提炼的营养物质，作为预防感冒和减少缺席率的有效措施。

1 由the study 不能推断吃较大量的鱼可以预防感冒
2 即使吃鱼可以预防感冒,由EM 也不能推断WM, 两地可比性
3 建议本身有问提(1可行性2无证据显示ichthaid的功效和鱼一样3 通常感冒只是人们找的一个借口, 即使能有效预防感冒,也会有新的借口出现,缺席率任无改善)

In this memo, the arguer recommends that in order to avoid colds and diminish absenteeism the additional nourishment named Ichthaid, refined from fish oil, should be taken every day. To support the recommendation, the arguer points out that eating sufficient amounts of fish can prevent colds, which used as one the most frequently alibi for absenteeism. The arguer also cites the result of a study that the residents in neighboring East Meria maintain an immense consumption of fish and go to hospital just on or two times per year on the sake of cold. Nevertheless, the argument is logically unconvinced in several respects.

To begin with, the arguer makes a hastily conclusion that eating enough amount of fish is an effective measure of keep away form cold according to the study’s result. First of all, there are many factors, take the comfort environment for instance, influence the proportion of the cold’s occurrence rather than the fish’s high consumption. Secondly, the low frequency of visiting doctor dose not indicate that the residents in East Meria are less inclined to gain cold. Perhaps those residents are reluctant to see doctor even if they obtain cold; or perhaps the residents frequently go to hospital for more serious diseases derive from the recurrence of cold. In short, without ruling out the above possible scenarios, the arguer cannot reasonably concludes that eating adequate quantity of fish contribute to the decrease of colds.

Moreover, even if the high consumption of fish is responsible for the decrease of cold, the arguer’s claim that the consequence brought about by the high fish’s consumption in East Meria would be happened through the implement of the same measure in West Meria is unwarranted. It is entirely possible that the majority population in East Meria is middle age who are at the climax of their lives and are less vulnerable of diseases, while it is the geronto-society (老龄化社会?) in West Meria. Besides, perhaps the government of East Meria has applied diversified projects to strengthen the citizens’ healthy. For example, providing  more financial support to the public facilities(公共健身设施?). There still a probable possibility that the people in East Meria are too poor to see doctor, maybe they just buy some medicine on their own. Unless all other conditions between East Meria and West Meia are the same excluding the different quantity of fish consumption, the arguer’s claim that eating enough fish would be effective in West Meria is persuasive.

Finally, even if the measure of eating enough fish in East Meria is available to West Meria too, the arguer’s recommendation is questionable in itself. In the first place, there is no evidence to substantiate that the Ichthaid has the equal function of fish although it is derived form fish. As it is known to all, the process of refine will inevitable damage the nutrition of fish. In the second place, even if the Ichthaid is proved to be effective, perhaps the price would be extreme high as the current nourishment, therefore, cannot be afforded by ordinary people. In the third place, cold are always used as one excuse of the absence from school and work. Just think, the adoption of Ichthaid indeed result in the decrease of cold, then some other excuses, such as toothache, headache, stomachache and so forth, will be produced to escape from work and school. In such circumstance, the Ichthaid is of no effect to diminish the absenteeism. Consequently, there are so many aspects influence the efficacy of the recommendation; hence the feasibility of it should be reconsideration.

In summary, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the fish’s as well as the Icthaid’s function of prevent cold, and the actually reason of absenteeism. To better evaluate the argument; we should need more information regarding the differences between East Meria and West Meria .