欢迎拍--7月27日 ARGU(187)

xiaohuimi291UID: 2760978

TOPIC: ARGUMENT187 - The following appeared as part of an article in a health magazine.

"A new discovery warrants a drastic change in the diets of people living in the United States. Two scientists have recently suggested that omega -3 fatty acids (found in some fish and fish oils) play a key role in mental health. Our ancestors, who ate less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat, including omega -3 fatty acids, were much less likely to suffer from depression than we are today. Moreover, modern societies-such as those in Japan and Taiwan-that consume large quantities of fish report depression rates lower than that in the United States. Given this link between omega -3 fatty acids and depression, it is important for all people in the United States to increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression."
WORDS: 411
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-7-27 20:37:03

The author of this argument recommends that all people in the United States eat more fish to prevent depression. To support his recommendation, the author points out that ancients who ate more ployunsaturated fat suffered less depression than modern people. Furthermore, the author points out that in the contemporary society, people in East have a lower rate of depression for thier diet of numerus fish. However, close srutiny of its evidence reveals several logical flaws in this argument.
First of all, the author's claim that American should eat more fish rests on the evidence that ancients ate more polyunsaturated fat and thus suffered less from depression. However, we are not informed that if it is the omega-3 in the polyunsaturated fat that effects on preventing depression. It is entirely possible that other components in the polyunsaturated fat works for curing this disease. Moreoover, the author fails to consider that living environment has change in the recent decades which could influence the results of the comparison between the ancients and the modern people. Common sense tells us that today's high paced living way might cause more patients in depression. Without ruling out these plausible explainations, any claims based on this evidence is unconvincing.
Seconly, the author also bases his claim on the comparison with Eastern people who eat more fish daily. However, despite of the quantity of fish on diet, there are numrous differences, such as the whole structure of diets, the pressure in the work and family, the living way, and exercise frequency, which all could lead to the differences in the depression rate. If any of possibilities above is the case, the author’s claim would be unfair.
Finally, we are not informed that if there is better ways, other than diet on fish, to prevent depression. In fact, we might find various of food, invent kinds of drugs or create some
physical exercises to help patients prevent, or even cure, depression. What’s more, it is possible that some Americans are naturally allergic to fish, so eating fish to prevent depression would be a life-threatn behavior. If this is the case, the author could not recommend all Americans eat fish to prevent depression.
In sum, the argument is not well supported. To peruade me, the author should provide more accurate evidence to prove that the ancients and the East have received a lower rate of depresion from eating fish. To better evaluate this argument, the author should exclude other methods to prevent depression.