argument38 ...fantasy group... 限时不成功！汗...

mmeiwUID：2101523

:handshake 欢迎拍砖！

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 38 - The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.

"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."
WORDS：482          TIME：0:30:00 (+修改30min)          DATE：2005-9-4

The arguer concludes that West Meria should be recommended the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism, because he found that the fish consumption is probably the cause to reduce the rate of catching cold. The argument sounds plausible, but it is actually suffers several critical fallacies.

To begin with, the arguer establishes a false analogy between West Meria and East Meria. In the first place, the result of the study might not be statistically reliable. The reported fact that people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds dose not necessarily mean the number of patients who catch cold is mall. Perhaps most people do not want to see doctor when they have a cold because some simple medicine will solve the problem; or perhaps there are many people who visit the doctor are not reported. Without ruling out all these possibilities, it is impossible for the arguer to draw any reliable conclusion based on the study. In the second place, the price of treatment of colds in East Meria is much expensive than in West Meria, so the people could not afford it for many times per year.

Secondly, the arguer conducts an argument on the basis of a poor assumption that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. However, there is no evidence to support the assumption. It is quite possible that the people in East Meria like exercise or the weather there is more moderate which might result in the colds reduction. On the absence of such data as the relationship between the quantity of fish consumption and rate of catching cold, other geological, economic or social factors, I just cannot consider the arguer's commendation seriously.

Furthermore, granted that eating fish can prevent colds, it is not necessarily mean that the Ichthaid is the just effective component in fish oil. The arguer gives no information to prove the effect of Ichthaid on preventing cold. It is entirely possible that some other components, rather than Ichthaid, in fish actually serve as this function; or perhaps many components combine to accomplish such a task of preventing cold.

Last but not least, the assumption that reducing cold will be sure to cut down the absenteeism is lack of evidence. Lacking the information regarding the fraction of cold-catcher in total number of absenteeism and other cause of absenteeism, the arguer’s assumption is unfounded.  

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the Ichthaid consumption and cold preventing and absenteeism in the schools and workplaces. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the similarity between West Meria and East Meria. To better evaluate the argument, we need more information regarding the outcome of Ichthaid to prevent cold and other causes of absenteeism.

mmeiwUID：2101523

自己顶顶先:lol

aggiezxUID：2105569

The arguer concludes that West Meria should be recommended the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism, because he found that the fish consumption is probably the cause to reduce the rate of catching cold. The argument sounds plausible, but it is(去掉) actually suffers several critical fallacies.

To begin with, the arguer establishes a false analogy between West Meria and East Meria. In the first place, the result of the study might not be statistically reliable. The reported fact that people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds dose not necessarily mean the number of patients who catch cold is mall. Perhaps most people do not want to see (the) doctor when they have a cold because some simple medicine(s) will solve the problem; or perhaps there are many people who visit the doctor are(did) not report. Without ruling out all these possibilities, it is impossible for the arguer to draw any reliable conclusion based on the study. In the second place, the price of treatment of colds in East Meria is(may be) much (more) expensive than in West Meria, so the（去掉） people could not afford it for many times per year.

Secondly, the arguer conducts an argument on the basis of a poor(?) assumption that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. However, there is no evidence to support the assumption. It is quite possible that the people in East Meria like exercise or the weather there is more moderate which might result in the colds reduction(less colds). On the absence of such data as the relationship between the quantity of fish consumption and (the) rate of catching cold, (and) other geological, economic or social factors, I just cannot consider the arguer's commendation seriously.

Furthermore, granted that eating fish can prevent colds, it is not necessarily mean(ing) that the Ichthaid is the just(?) effective component in fish oil. The arguer gives no information to prove the effect of Ichthaid on preventing cold. It is entirely possible that some other components, rather than (those Ichthaid contains), in fish actually serve as this function; or perhaps many components combine to accomplish such a task of preventing cold.

Last but not least, the assumption that reducing cold will be sure to cut down the absenteeism is lack of evidence. Lacking the information regarding the fraction（proportions?） of cold-catcher(s) in (the) total number of absenteeism and other cause(s) of absenteeism, the arguer’s assumption is unfounded.  

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the Ichthaid consumption and cold preventing and absenteeism in the schools and workplaces.(三者还是两者，一个因果可否？还是两个) To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the similarity between West Meria and East Meria. To better evaluate the argument, we need more information regarding the outcome （effect）of Ichthaid to(on) preventing// or the outcome of using Ichthaid to prevent//  cold and other causes of absenteeism.

mmeiwUID：2101523

非常感谢！:handshake
继续修改ing

freda_xinUID：2133401

顶一个吧，觉得不错：）

weiweizhuUID：179352

The arguer concludes that West Meria should be recommended the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism, because he found that the fish consumption is probably the cause to reduce the rate of catching cold. The argument sounds plausible, but it is actually suffers several critical fallacies.

To begin with, the arguer establishes a false analogy between West Meria and East Meria. In the first place, the result of the study might not be statistically reliable. The reported fact that people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds dose not necessarily means the number of patients who catch cold is mall. Perhaps most people do not want to see doctor when they have a cold because some simple medicine will solve the problem; or perhaps there are many people who visit the doctor are not reported. Without ruling out all these possibilities, it is impossible for the arguer to draw any reliable conclusion based on the study. In the second place, the price of treatment of colds in East Meria is much expensive than in West Meria, so the people could not afford it for many times per year.（这段分析的已经很到位了）
Secondly, the arguer conducts an argument on the basis of a poor assumption that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. However, there is no evidence to support the assumption. It is quite possible that the people in East Meria like exercise or the weather there is more moderate which might result in the colds reduction. On the absence of such data as the relationship between the quantity of fish consumption and rate of catching cold, other geological, economic or social factors, I （不要出现个人评价这种主观词汇）just cannot consider the arguer's commendation seriously.（可用被动句表示 just this evidence cannot make the recommendation considered seriously）
Furthermore, granted that eating fish can prevent colds, it is not necessarily mean that the Ichthaid is the just effective component in fish oil. The arguer gives no information to prove the effect of Ichthaid on preventing cold. It is entirely possible that some other components, rather than Ichthaid（oil\in fish actually serve as this function; or perhaps many components combine to accomplish such a task of preventing cold.（这段最好总结一下）
Last but not least, the assumption that reducing cold will be sure to cut down the absenteeism is lack of evidence. Lacking the information regarding the fraction of cold-catcher in total number of absenteeism and other cause of absenteeism, the arguer’s assumption is unfounded. (这段要展开，没展开显得很不完整。如果只是小问题想一笔代过，可以跟在前段后不用另起一段)
In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the Ichthaid consumption and cold preventing and absenteeism in the schools and workplaces. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the similarity between West Meria and East Meria. To better evaluate the argument, we need more information regarding the outcome of Ichthaid to prevent cold and other causes of absenteeism.

总体来说已经很不错了，楼主考虑得挺到位得，很多错误都作了合理得解释和改进

所以在改时我是尽量骨头里面挑毛病得，呵呵

希望楼主也帮我看看，我写错题了写成28了

mmeiwUID：2101523

恩， 继续改进:)