[Big Fish]03月12日Argument158--By swolf54

swolf54UID: 2421931

TOPIC: ARGUMENT158 - The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites. A total of five sites and 300 people were examined. The study revealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. Furthermore, although it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Therefore, the council is pleased to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. We see no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.
WORDS: 431          TIME: 00:26:24          DATE: 2010-3-12 15:41:43


     In the argument, the arguer claims that there is no need to restrict the size of garbage sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites. To support his assertion, he cites the result from a research conducted by the Trash-Site Safety Council. However, this argument is not compelling at all due to the several obvious vital mistakes made by the arguer.
     In the first place, the arguer provides no evidence about the reliability of the research. According to him, the research examined a total of five sites and 300 people. However, the number of the examined people may be too small compared with the total population of our state. In other words, the sample size is not significant enough to draw any convincible general conclusion. Without demonstrating the reliability of the study, the arguer cannot support his assertion.
     In the second place, even if I admit that the sample size is statistically significant, I still remain doubt about other ideas proposed in the argument. Since the study has already show a relationship between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes, how could he still assume that garbage do not harm people's health. Besides, as people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes; it is unjustifiable for the arguer to persist his idea that there is no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. In other words, the author unfairly assumes that all of the evidences are not strong enough to demonstrate the harm garbage brings to human health. Under such circumstances, I became more skeptical about the argument's reliability.
    What makes things worse is that, the arguer even proposes that we have no need to restrict the size of such garbage sites and we can build numbers of buildings near the garbage sites. This eventually turns to be insane, because the arguer fails to consider other probable consequences. It is entirely possible that the dwellers will be annoyed from the unpleasant smell from garbage sites. And residents' health will be seriously endangered at the same time. Without ruling out those possibilities, the argument is indispensible enough.
     In conclusion, the argument is not convincible sin the arguer fail to make a sound logic to sustain his assertion. In order to strengthen his ideas, he needs to demonstrate the reliability of the study. In addition, he also needs to provide more convincible and acceptable evidence that garbage don't threaten people's health.

gaobaoayu123UID: 2740997

我觉得你的文章写得很好  没看出什么问题。。。。。逻辑也很不错，说理也挺好