Argument 113 酒香

Boris21UID: 2915545

  Assuming that all the vision problems are caused by wearing sunglasses, grounding on the result of study which shows that So-low can do little to block rays and even may damage eyes in the sunny region, the author tries to convince that it is better for people who care about their eyes not to wear So-low, but to buy high-priced sunglasses or wear no glasses. At first glance, this argument seems plausible, but after careful examination we find many flaws in it.

  Firstly, there is no detailed evidence of the reasons for the vision problems, whether it is all due to wearing sunglasses. Vision problems can be caused by various means, e.g. drinking toxic wine, washing face with the water containing harmful chemical element, sitting to long in front of computer screen and so on. Sun-burning is only one reason for the vision problems, and to wear sunglasses is the popular way to avoid it. However, we all know that even the best sunglasses cannot block all the rays. So despite the study provides enough evidence to prove that the sun-burning it is most vital factor of vision problem, we still cannot conclude that wearing sunglasses can damage our eyes.

  Second, granted that it is because of sunglasses that our eyes are damaged, we should not hastily assert that we should only abandon So-low sunglasses. The author unfairly assumes that So-low sunglasses has no advantages. Perhaps only sunglasses of this brand are developed to do more protection of eyes. If the author wants to show that the So-low sunglasses is harmful, he needs to offer much information about the special features of So-low and how they damage the eyes of people.

   Thirdly, the study is only conducted at the sunny regions, possibly So-low sunglasses could still suitable in other regions. The author neglects the difference between climate. Granted that So-low may not block the harmful rays in the sunny region, but in the colder places where may not have those rays, so-low perhaps will make a big sale for its lower price. The study is not representative for all the regions, so it is not sound here.

   Fourthly, the author fails to consider that the high-priced sunglasses may not better than So-low in defending sunshine. The higher price does not means higher quality. Possibly all the sunglasses cannot block those rays. The author does not make any claims of why the high-priced ones are better. If the only the difference is the price, then why consumers do not choose the later one.

  Finally, the author ignores other possible solutions to solve the problems. He only suggests consumers that in order to prevent eyes from damaging, it is better to wear high-priced glasses or not to wear any sunglasses. As every ones knows that sunglasses though can serve as the strongest shield of eyes, but wearing it still can block some rays. If we prefer to not wearing sunglasses, our eyes must be damaged more seriously. If the only way is to buy high-priced ones, then we must spend more money. Neither of them is a pleasant consequence.

  In sum, the author fails to make the claim of suggesting consumers to stop wearing So-low sunglasses. To better support his argument, he requires to provide more details of the study, the study of other region, an analysis of the causes of vision problem and how those are related to sunglasses. More importantly, to make a comparison of various sunglasses, so he can conclude that which sunglasses is more suitable for people to wear