Argument38 kito小组leedgen的作业，欢迎拍转

leedgenUID：160823

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.'
提纲：
1．食用足够的鱼是不是能防止感冒？被调查是东部地区，其他地区气候情况等都不同。
2．Ichthaid是不是能防止感冒，和鱼一样有效果呢？另外，它有无副作用都未知。
3．减少感冒能不能减少旷课和矿工？

Absenteeism n. 旷课, 旷工

A suggestion of the daily use of Ichthaid is provided in this argument as an effective way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To substantiate this recommendation, the author cites a study reports in nearby East Meria where fish consumption is rather high. At first glance the suggestion seems appealing and persuasive, yet after pondering over this argument, I find it suffers from several critical fallacies that undermined its validity.

Most serious of all, the conclusion of the study that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds is actually unconvincing on some facets. On the one hand, the arguer does not present any evidence concerning the total number of respondents and how the study is conducted in East Meria. Also there is little information in respect of whether those who catch colds will always visit the doctor. Thus the number of people who visit the doctors in treatment of colds could not indicate the actual quantity of people who get colds. On the other hand, the study is researched in East Meria, where the weather and climate may be distinct from other areas. It is very likely that the weather there is almost constant and does not change as much as other places, therefore people living there are not easily exposed to colds. Without such vital evidence mentioned above, it is impossible to safely reach the conclusion that fish can contribute to lower occurrence of colds among people.

Furthermore, granted that fish can help to prevent colds, does Ichthaid have the same effect as fish? According to the argument, we are reluctant to agree that Ichthaid could prevent colds. Ichthaid is a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, and perhaps most nutrition which is effective in inhibiting colds is lost during the refining process. In other words, Ichthaid might do little good to avoid catching colds. Besides, the arguer does not provide any information concerning the safety and potential side-effects of Ichthaid. Perhaps Ichthaid is not edible for every person or must be taken under doctor’s prescription. Thus it is absurd to suggest people to take Ichthaid to prevent colds.

As a final point, the most problematic evidence, one of the bases of this argument, is that the speaker assumes that preventing colds will eventually lead to lower absenteeism. Supposed that eating fish or taking Ichthaid does help to prevent colds, we still could not draw out a solid conclusion that absenteeism in schools and workplaces will be significantly reduced. Colds is but a good excuse to be absent from classes and work. It is highly possible that cold is effectively prevented to some extent whereas other excuses like stomach-ache might be often used to be absent. So it is groundless for the arguer to state the suggestion as an effective way to lower absenteeism.

In conclusion, as we can see from the foregoing analysis, the argument has several patent flaws. To make the recommendation more persuasive, the author should present more concrete evidence regarding eating fish’s effects in preventing colds and other information that Ichthaid has the same effect as fish. In addition, an investigation in the actual reasons of absenteeism should be made before further actions are taken.

@amy@UID：209096

A suggestion of the daily use of Ichthaid is provided in this argument as an effective way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To substantiate this recommendation, the author cites a study reports in nearby East Meria where fish consumption is rather high. At first glance the suggestion seems appealing and persuasive, yet after pondering over this argument, I find it suffers from several critical fallacies that undermined its validity.

Most serious of all, the conclusion of the study that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds is actually unconvincing on some facets. On the one hand, the arguer does not present any evidence concerning the total number of respondents and how the study is conducted in East Meria. Also there is little information in respect of whether those who catch colds will always visit the doctor. Thus the number of people who visit the doctors in treatment of colds could not indicate the actual quantity of people who get colds. On the other hand, the study is researched in East Meria, where the weather and climate may be distinct from other areas. It is very likely that the weather there is almost constant and does not change as much as other places, therefore people living there are not easily exposed to colds. Without such vital evidence mentioned above, it is impossible to safely reach the conclusion that fish can contribute to lower occurrence of colds among people.

Furthermore, granted that fish can help to prevent colds, does Ichthaid have the same effect as fish? According to the argument, we are reluctant to agree that Ichthaid could prevent colds. Ichthaid is a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, and perhaps most nutrition(,) which is effective in inhibiting colds(,) is lost during the refining process. In other words, Ichthaid might do little good to avoid catching colds. Besides, the arguer does not provide any information concerning the safety and potential side-effects of Ichthaid. Perhaps Ichthaid is not edible for every person or must be taken under doctor’s prescription. Thus it is absurd to suggest people to take Ichthaid to prevent colds.

As a final point, the most problematic evidence, one of the bases of this argument, is that the speaker assumes that preventing colds will eventually lead to lower absenteeism. Supposed that eating fish or taking Ichthaid does help to prevent colds, we still could not draw out a solid conclusion that absenteeism in schools and workplaces will be significantly reduced. Colds is (are) but a good excuse to be absent from classes and work. It is highly possible that cold is effectively prevented to some extent whereas other excuses like stomach-ache (stomachache) might be often used to be absent. So it is groundless for the arguer to state the suggestion as an effective way to lower absenteeism.

In conclusion, as we can see from the foregoing analysis, the argument has several patent flaws. To make the recommendation more persuasive, the author should present more concrete evidence regarding eating fish’s effects in preventing colds and other information that Ichthaid has the same effect as fish. In addition, an investigation in the actual reasons of absenteeism should be made before further actions are taken.

嗯，嗯，这篇写得真好，论证得很全面，结构也很严谨，学习ing~~:cool: