【Big Fish】03月11日Argument165--By gaobao

gaobaoayu123UID: 2740997

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: 426
TIME:
DATE: 2010/3/11 19:30:27

This article on magazine indicate that Promofoods concluded that the cans of tuna, which received numerous consumer' complains that caused dizziness and nausea, did not contain chemicals are bad for health, supported by a test result. This conclusion is reasonable at first sight; however, it has several flaws which I will argue below.

First of all, the testing procedure itself is questionable. The chemists who provide the test's result is from Promofoods. It is entirely possible that result is fabricated in the consideration of the company's reputation. Or the chemists are controlled by the company. In addition, whether the samples--8 million requested cans--can stand for all the cans is questionable. May be these is a extremely small quantity when compared with the whole cans. And these cans maybe just the ones not contain those chemicals which caused dizziness and nausea. It is possible that problem cans are already eaten by the consumers.

Secondly, even the result of the test is reliable; the conclusion relies partly on the fact that the three of eight remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods. However this fact is not reasonable. First, other cans that contain such chemicals may also cause such symptoms. Then, it is entirely possible that the chemicals in Promofoods cans is far more than those in others and exceed the safe content.

Further more, the conclusion failed to tell us whether there has other chemicals can cause dizziness and nausea in the tuna cans. The tests only tested the commonly blamed eight chemicals. In common sense there is a lot of additions in the cans food. And the author concluded hasty by only tested eight common chemicals.

At last, although the entire conclusion is reasonable, it is arbitrary that the author draws the conclusion that the cans did not contain any chemicals that posed a health risk. The test only provide us the cans contain no chemicals that caused dizziness and nausea but not say anything about the chemicals may lead other risks to health.


In conclusion, this article is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the assertion that the tuna cans of Promofoods did not have anything that threatens the health, the author must prove that the test procedure is reliable. And the author must provide us that the three suspected chemicals remained is safe and the content of them is accord to the standard. To made us more convince, the author must also provide the evidence that other chemicals contained can not cause any risks to health.

   
         

wowoyuweiweiUID: 2754055

This article on magazine indicate that Promofoods concluded that the cans of tuna, which received numerous consumer' complains that caused dizziness and nausea, did not contain chemicals are bad for health, supported by a test result. This conclusion is reasonable at first sight; however, it has several flaws which I will argue below.

First of all, the testing procedure itself is questionable. The chemists who provide the test's result is from Promofoods.(这个想法好！) It is entirely possible that result is abricated in the consideration of the company's reputation. Or the chemists are controlled by the company. In addition, whether the samples--8 million requested cans--can stand for all the cans is questionable. May be（Maybe） these is a extremely small quantity when compared with the whole cans. And these cans maybe just the ones not contain those chemicals which caused dizziness and nausea. It is possible that problem cans are already eaten by the consumers.（我觉得是不是也可以说是不知道怎么从8 million中抽取样本的,毕竟不可能全部都测试）

Secondly, even the result of the test is reliable; the conclusion relies partly on the fact that the three of eight remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods. However this fact is not reasonable. First, other cans that contain such chemicals may also cause such symptoms. Then, it is entirely possible that the chemicals in Promofoods cans is far more than those in others and exceed the safe content.（题目中说因为这是在自然状态下找到的，所以就不具有危险。但是事实如何，没人知道）

Further more, the conclusion failed to tell us whether there has other chemicals can cause dizziness and nausea in the tuna cans. The tests only tested the commonly blamed eight chemicals. In common sense there is（are） a lot of additions in the cans food. And the author concluded hasty by only tested eight common chemicals.

At last, although the entire conclusion is reasonable, it is arbitrary that the author draws the conclusion that the cans did not contain any chemicals that posed a health risk. The test only provides us the cans contain no chemicals that caused dizziness and nausea but not say anything about the chemicals may lead other risks to health.


In conclusion, this article is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the assertion that the tuna cans of Promofoods did not have anything that threatens the health, the author must prove that the test procedure is reliable. And the author must provide us that the three suspected chemicals remained is safe and the content of them is accord to the standard. To made us more convince, the author must also provide the evidence that other chemicals contained can not cause any risks to health.

问题找到很多，但是每一段应该再详细说说。
我觉得引发不良反应也可能是那些顾客自己的过敏反应，不能食品。
在语法上，可以试试同义词替换，这样会感觉更丰富些。
还有单复数的问题，要注意