【big fish】3月11日习作Argument165-----by topran,有拍毕回~

topranUID: 2310216

有拍必回
"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."

====================================================================

In this artical , Promofoods claims that their product known as tuna can contains no health risk ,even though it has been complainted by plenty of consumer due to dizziness and nausea. To justify it conclusion , Promofoods points out that recalled sample cans only contain three suspected chemicals and these three is wildly existed in canned foods. However , based on such dubious evidence , this conclusion is unconvincing in following aspects .

First of all, the test study is based on the recalled cans, without further information to describe sample collected method , we can not know the sample for test can behalf all tuna cans . The possibility that the recalled cans is different batch of cans which cause dizziness and nausea can not be excluded. And through the article , we can not find any information about the size of sample size or other details , just based on the existed information , the test experiment is not reasonable enough to be trusted .

Second , even if we assume that the sample for test study was collected by reasonable method and the samples can represent the whole batches of product well. But through the article , we still know that there were three kinds of chemicals had been found in tuna can . Even though Promofoods claims that these three chemical were naturally found in all other canned food , there is no information to tell it is legal for other can food to contain these three chemicals .Maybe the other can food company was on the same track with Promofoods , maybe they were complained by consumer as well and recalled their product too. So the other food added these three chemicals in cans can not be the excuse for Promofoods to follow.    And no information in this article point out the quantity of the usage for these three chemicals .It is possible that Promofood did not obey the limitation of usage amount and excessive usage could cause serious health risk like dizziness and nausea. Without any detail information , we can not be convinced by the result of study.

Last but not least , even if we ignore the above logic blemish , the conclusion can not stand firm and solid due to the rest 5 kinds of chemicals blaming for cause symptom of dizziness and nausea . From provided information ,we just know that these 5 kinds of chemicals not existed in the tested samples , but we can not rule out the possibility that they can be found out in the non-sample set . By this point , we can not accepted that the tuna can of Promofoods was free of health risky component .

To sum up , the conclusion that the Promofoods company was out of responsibility for the dizziness and nausea symptom complained by consumer is unpersuasive as it stands . To support this conclusion ,the Promofoods need to provide more detail information about sample collected method and test procedure , what’s more , they also need to give specific information about usage amount and legal item to explain that existence of three chemicals is reasonable. And rule out the possibility that the rest 5 chemical were contained by non-sample set.

swolf54UID: 2421931

第一个论点和第三个论点重复咯

topranUID: 2310216

第一个论点和第三个论点重复咯
swolf54 发表于 2010-3-12 15:06

是的呢，我是实在没话说了，但又觉得话说得不够，加到第一段去吧，又觉得头中脚轻的

jjooyyUID: 2704028

In this artical , Promofoods claims that their products known as tuna can contains no health risk ,even though it has been complainted by plenty of consumers due to dizziness and nausea. To justify itthe conclusion , Promofoods points out that recalled sample cans only contain three suspected chemicals and these three is wildly existed in canned foods. However , based on such dubious evidence , this conclusion is unconvincing in following aspects .

First of all, the test study is based on the recalled cans, without further information to describe sample collected method , we can not know the sample for test can behalf all tuna cans . The possibility that the recalled cans is different batch of cans which cause dizziness and nausea can not be excluded. And through the article , we can not find any information about the size of sample size or other details , just based on the existed information , the test experiment is not reasonable enough to be trusted .

Second , even if we assume that the sample for test study was collected by reasonable method and the samples can represent the whole batches of product well. But through the article , we still know that there were three kinds of chemicals had been found in tuna can . Even though Promofoods claims that these three chemical were naturally found in all other canned food , there is no information to tell it is legal for other can food to contain these three chemicals .Maybe the other can food company was on the same track(有这样的用法吗) with Promofoods , maybe they were complained by consumer as well and recalled their product too. So the other food added these three chemicals in cans can not be the excuse for Promofoods to follow.    And no information in this article point out the quantity of the usage for these three chemicals .It is possible that Promofood did not obey the limitation of usage amount and excessive usage could cause serious health risk like dizziness and nausea. Without any detail information , we can not be convinced by the result of study.

Last but not least , even if we ignore the above logic blemish , the conclusion can not stand firmly and solidly due to the rest 5 kinds of chemicals blaming for cause symptom of dizziness and nausea . From provided information ,we just know that these 5 kinds of chemicals not existed in the tested samples , but we can not rule out the possibility that they can be found out in the non-sample set . By this point , we can not accepted that the tuna can of Promofoods was free of health risky component .

To sum up , the conclusion that the Promofoods company was out of responsibility for the dizziness and nausea symptom complained by consumer is unpersuasive as it stands . To support this conclusion ,the Promofoods need to provide more detail information about sample collected method and test procedure , what’s more , they also need to give specific information about usage amount and legal item to explain that existence of three chemicals is reasonable. And rule out the possibility that the rest 5 chemical were contained by non-sample set.

1.ARGU找逻辑漏洞不是随便找他没写清楚什么，那他没写清楚的东西太多了 A-》B 驳的重点是推导过程https://bbs.gter.net/thread-620337-1-1.html
2.语法方面还是有些问题，建议楼主好好学习一下语法知识，断句什么的也不是想中文那么随意
3.中翻英不是那么好翻的，可能的话 多查字典 ！学习地道的用法
4.有什么不理解或不同意的地方，随时PM或QQ我。。

zerohuangUID: 2760193

我觉的应该从大小前提来看

topranUID: 2310216

4# jjooyy

我突然明白了，我好像是在抬杠，不是在讲理