Argument38 =August Rush=小组第3次作业 yangguang

yangguang_86UID: 2414818

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."


我们注意到一种保证可以显著减少学校和工作岗位的缺席的革新疗法。一项研究报告说在附近的East Meria，鱼的消费量很高，那里的人们每年因为治感冒而去看医生的次数只有一或两次。显然，吃较大量的鱼可以预防感冒。由于感冒是学校和单位缺席的最常见原因，我们建议每天服用Ichthaid，一种从鱼油中提炼的营养物质，作为预防感冒和减少缺席率的有效措施。

提纲：
1.
EM地区人们每年因为治感冒而去看医生的次数少不代表生病的人少，免疫力强
2.
吃鱼和预防感冒没有关系。错误因果
3.
就算吃鱼可以预防感冒，但不代表Ichthaid 中含有有效的预防感冒的物质；此外不一定适用于所有的人会不会有副作用；而且适用于EM不一定适用于WM
4.
就算Ich有用，该措施可能并不能降低学校和工作岗位的缺席率  

Mason.PDUID: 2592013

In this motto, the author recommends people to use Ichthaid ,a nutrition derived from fish oil ,to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. However, the recommendation relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions , which render it unconvincing as it stands.
非常简洁的开头！但是我觉得你应该把作者的论据说下，这样技能呼应下文的攻击顺序，也可以让rater留下个不是模版化开头的印象


To begin with ,the reliability of the study is unwarranted .Seldom visiting the doctor does not indicate that the health level in EM is relatively higher ,comparing with that in some lower fish consumption areas .It is quite possible that people having illness less seriously such as colds hardly go to hospital, but用instead of比but好 just take some medicine to recover by themselves. Or perhaps people are too busy with their works to visit the doctor. Besides ,how does the study conducted? If it is taken from doctors, whether the amount of visitors is big enough to represent overall health conditions in EM is still unknown.

Even assuming the study reflects the real health condition in EM, the author tries to establish a positive relationship between
people's health condition and high consumption of fish in East Meria -the former is attributed to the latter .However, the presumptuous correlation is unacceptable .The author has not account for the possibilities that physical constitution to resist colds may attribute to natural quality of people themselves, plenty of exercises taken daily ,or balanced diet ingested besides
fish. Without ruling out other comprehensive factors that might contribute to the
health condition , the author cannot justify the claims that high consumption of fish is responsible for prevention from colds ,let alone nutrition derived from fish .

Even though high consumption of fish is effective to prevent colds for people in EW, it might not be so In West Meria. Varieties of fishes taken in different districts varies
,thus people in WM might not digest the same effective chemicals from fish as the case in EM . Furthermore, there is little indication that Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil ,may also have the same effect as taking fish does. It is entirely possible that effective chemical may not contain in fish oil, that is to say Ichthaid wastes clients' money to immune colds. Moreover, the author overlooks the occasion that taking Ichthaid might bring to the consumers side effects ,at least it does not fit for partial people .Finally ,even assuming benefits from Ichthaid overwhelm its negatives, this recommendation might not reduce absenteeism ,as illness might just an excuse of a rest from work and escaping from school. For those matters, the author just make a judgment too hastily .建议Finally之后单独成段，因为这边谈的是请假的问题了

In sum , the recommendation is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands .To strengthen it , the author must provide better evidences such as
high consumption of fish contributes to the admirable health level of people in EM as well as Ichthaid contain such effective chemicals .
嗯，这边应该给于足够的说明对每个分论点的建议措施，不是泛泛的说

时间匆忙，没有细改句子。
逻辑写得很不错
就是我觉得我改了那么多的A 好多同样的模版化句式我见了好多，建议改改啊

lela900UID: 2634833

看附件~

yangguang_86UID: 2414818

君子之辩 的思想：
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."
.
调查没有涉及方法和具体对象人群
.
别去攻击调查的人感冒去了医院之后是不是不肯告诉别人,或者攻击这个调查是卖鱼的搞的,所以有倾向性.酱紫还不如攻击consumptions高是因为买的鱼被宠物猫吃了有前途.
.
这个调查本身 在附近的East Meria,那里鱼的消耗量很大,人们每年去医院看感冒的次数只有一到两次,这句话本身没有问题.也就是这个survey到这里一点问题都没有,那句话就得承认他是事实,它只是陈述了两件事实,一个是人吃鱼多,一个是人去医院看感冒少.就这么多而已.后面将这两件事情关联起来乃至扣上因果的帽子,那是后面要批驳的事情,和盲目批驳这个survey无关.尽管要推导到最后的结论the daily use of Ichthaid中间还有长的距离(鱼不是inchthaid等等),但与这个survey直接相连的一步推理 eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds.是可以而且必须对应联系到survey来攻击的.去医院看感冒少就是得感冒少吗?这两个孤立的事实之间真的就像作者说得那样存在因果关系吗?它们甚至之间有联系吗?
.
这些攻击才算是动态的,思辨的.
.
这些关于survey的讨论同样适用于题目中别的背景陈述

再次重申，上面题目中间
蓝色的字表示survey本身,个人认为和别的背景信息一样都应该默认是正确的
红色的字表示作者推导出的最终的实质性行动或者建议
紫色的字表示推理过程或者那些建议的理由好处等等(也是推理)
.
总结:
argument重点的攻击,应该放在推理与基本信息之间的联系,还有推理与最终结论行动建议之间的联系,而不是放在孤立的背景信息上面.背景信息也就是当时pooh所说的前提.前提都要假定它们是正确的,请不要单独攻击它们的正确性.
就像n多人写的调查方法如何,回答者的数量是否足够,回答者是否诚实回答了问题.....
这些都是在argument前提,无用功.