[Big Fish]03月11日Argument165--By swolf54

swolf54UID: 2421931

TOPIC: ARGUMENT165 - The following appeared in a business magazine.

"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods."
WORDS: 425
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-3-11 16:25:48

             According to the business magazine, in responding to the numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, the arguer reached the conclusion that Promofoods cans did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. To support his assertion, he points out that Promofoods requested eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing and the conclusion shows only three of the chemicals, which cause dizziness and nausea, were found in the cans. And those chemists also appeared in other kinds of canned foods. Nevertheless, however convincible this argument first appears, I'm skeptical towards it due to several vital mistakes made by the arguer.
            In the first place, the author provides no evidence that the study's result is statistically reliable. He mentioned that eight million cans of tuna were recalled. However, this sample size may be not big enough, needless to say represent the condition of all products over the country. Since the number of samples is insufficient, any conclusion drew from it is not compelling.
            At the second place, even if I admit that the sample size is statistically significant, I still remain doubt to other reasons mentioned by the arguer. According to what he said, among those chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms, three of them were found in the recalled cans. This turns to be a negative factor that indicates Promofoods cans suffer from serious quality problem. The arguer unfairly assumes that because those chemicals are naturally found in other canned foods, they do no harm to people's health. However, it is entirely possible that those chemicals have already endangered consumers' health and affected most fiercely in cans made by Promofoods. Without enough information about the effects that those chemicals generate to human's body, the arguer could not rashly claims that those chemicals are harmless.
          In the last place, even if I accept that those chemicals do no harm to people's health, the argument still makes a unwarranted inference. The author overlooks the strong possibility that other chemicals in the cans may cause the dizziness and nausea of its consumer. Without ruling out this possibility, the author cannot justifiably conclude that the cans are secure to everyone.
           In conclusion, due to the several vital mistakes made by the arguer, he fails to make a sound logic to sustain his own assertion. In order to strengthen his point, he needs to demonstrate the reliability of that study. In addition, it is also recommended that he should provide detail information about the facts that may cause dizziness and nausea to ensure the safety of their product.

jjooyyUID: 2704028

          According to the business magazine, in responding to the numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, the arguer reached the conclusion that Promofoods cans did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk. To support his assertion, he points out that Promofoods requested eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing and the conclusion shows only three of the chemicals, which cause dizziness and nausea, were found in the cans. And those chemists also appeared in other kinds of canned foods. Nevertheless, however convincible this argument first appears, I'm skeptical towards it due to several vital mistakes made by the arguer.
            In the first place, the author provides no evidence that the study's result is statistically reliable. He mentioned that eight million cans of tuna were recalled. However, this sample size may be not big enough, needless to say represent the condition of all products over the country. Since the number of samples is insufficient, any conclusion drew from it is not compelling.
            At the second place, even if I admit that the sample size is statistically significant, I still remain doubt to other reasons mentioned by the arguer. According to what he said, among those chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms, three of them were found in the recalled cans. This turns to be a negative factor that indicates Promofoods cans suffer from serious quality problem. The arguer unfairly assumes that because those chemicals are naturally found in other canned foods, they do no harm to people's health. However, it is entirely possible that those chemicals have already endangered consumers' health and affected most fiercely in cans made by Promofoods. Without enough information about the effects that those chemicals generate to human's body, the arguer could not rashly claims that those chemicals are harmless.
          In the last place, even if I accept that those chemicals do no harm to people's health, the argument still makes a unwarranted inference. The author overlooks the strong possibility that other chemicals in the cans may cause the dizziness and nausea of its consumer. Without ruling out this possibility, the author cannot justifiably conclude that the cans are secure to everyone.
           In conclusion, due to the several vital mistakes made by the arguer, he fails to make a sound logic(可以这样说吗？) to sustain his own assertion. In order to strengthen his point, he needs to demonstrate the reliability of that study. In addition, it is also recommended that he should provide detail information about the facts that may cause dizziness and nausea to ensure the safety of their products.

精彩 建议 错误
很好很强大，我学到了。。。基本没什么错了 论证也算深入！

topranUID: 2310216

每次看完sworlf的a都很感慨~~