[big fish] 3月11日 ARGUMENT165 by wowoyuweiwei

wowoyuweiweiUID: 2754055

In this argument, the author told us that for the numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, the Promofoods called all eight millions cans back to examine. To the result, the researchers claimed that no unhealthy chemicals were not contained in their products for they did not found 5 of poisonus chemicals and the other three were naturally found. At the first glance, this statement seemd well reasoned. But, when I think about it twice, I figure out it is not logical.
Firstly, it is impossible for Promofoods requested all cans back. Obviously, some customers had already eaten some, or they would not suspect tuna cans cuased their dizziness and nausea. For another reason, maybe some of the cans were lost during the transportation progress.  Therefore, we can conclude that this was not the truth.
Secondly, the author denied the possibility other than these 8 chemicals which let the consumers felt sick. In our common sense, the reason may be the irritation of these certain customers. They can not have tuna because their own body has somthing wrong. The information at the beginning can prove my suspection. It said numerous consumers complained this food, not all had these problems.
Thirdly, it is not mentioned that how did the chemists chose the samples. If they just pickede up several cans in a same boxes or producted in the same day, this result was not concincing. Perhaps in other cans, these five chemicals that posed a health risk did really exist.
Finaly, even if those five ones were not in contained in the cans, how can we believe that the other three found in foods had no relationship with the dizziness and nausea even though they are naturally? As we know, some certain objects also make people sick in a natural condition. So it is still possible for so called innocent chemicals harm our health.
To sum it up, to bolster the argument, the author should give evidence that the company really called all cans back and chose samples randomly fron the whole to do the experiment. Then, the readers should also be convinced that no other reasons caused the same problem except the 8 chemicals. At last, it is also necessary to demonstrate the left three found in naturally have no bad affects on human body.

rokre2ttUID: 2714355

In this argument, the author told us that for the numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, the Promofoods called all eight millions cans back to examine. To the result, the researchers claimed that no unhealthy chemicals were not(were) contained in their products for they did not found 5 of poisonus（poisonous） chemicals and the other three were naturally found. At the first glance, this statement seemd（seemed） well reasoned. But, when I think about it twice, I figure out it is not logical.
Firstly, it is impossible for Promofoods requested all cans back. （这么说似乎不妥，这样似乎是在为Promofoods辩护）Obviously, some customers had already eaten some, or they would not suspect tuna cans cuased（cause） their dizziness and nausea. For another reason, maybe some of the cans were lost during the transportation progress（process）.  Therefore, we can conclude that this was not the truth.
Secondly, the author denied the possibility other than these 8 chemicals which let the consumers felt sick. In our common sense, the reason may be the irritation of these certain customers. They can not have tuna because their own body has somthing（something） wrong. The information at the beginning can prove my suspection(suspicion). It said numerous consumers complained this food, not all had these problems.(需要展开一下。不然可能会有这种歧义：可能没有抱怨的人吃的罐头不含有害物质，因为并不能保证生产的所有罐头都含有那种导致皮疹的化学物质)
Thirdly, it is not mentioned that how did the chemists chose the samples. If they just pickede（pick） up several cans in a same boxes or producted(produced) in the same day, this result was not concincing. Perhaps in other cans, these five chemicals that posed a health risk did really exist.
Finaly（Finally）, even if those five ones were not in（多了） contained in the cans, how can we believe that the other three found in foods had no relationship with the dizziness and nausea even though they are naturally? As we know, some certain objects also make people sick in a natural condition. So it is still possible for so called innocent chemicals harm our health.
To sum it up, to bolster the argument, the author should give evidence that the company really called all cans back and chose samples randomly fron(from) the whole to do the experiment. Then, the readers should also be convinced that no other reasons caused the same problem except the 8 chemicals. At last, it is also necessary to demonstrate the left three found in naturally have no bad affects on human body.
找到的点挺多，但是感觉论证可以再加强些
注意语法和拼写小毛病