Argument 139（网上）
The following appeared as part of an article in a trade magazine.
“During a recent trial period in which government inspections at selected meat-processing plants were more frequent, the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken decreased by 50 percent on average from the previous year’s level. If the government were to institute more frequent inspections, the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country could thus be cut in half. In the meantime, consumers of Excel Meats should be safe from infection because Excel’s main processing plant has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination than any other plant cited in the government report.”
正文：
In this argument, the author concludes that the stomach and intestinal infection throughout the country will be cut in half and meanwhile the consumers of Excel Meats (EM) should be against the infection. The basis of the argument is that the amount of bacteria in samples of chicken decreased according to frequent government inspections. To buttress the conclusion, the author also cited the government report. However, further reflection reveals the conclusion omits some important concerns that should be concerned to substantiate the conclusion.
To begin with, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization in assuming that the quality of the whole meat processed has been improved on the basis that the bacteria in samples of chicken on average decreased. The sample the author provide is not sufficient to draw the conclusion that all the meat processed has been at a safe standard. It is entirely possible that although the bacteria in samples of chicken decreased 50 percent than the previous year’s level, the other meat, such as pig meat, face the problem of an increase in the bacteria in the meat. Therefore, the author should cite more evidence to bolster the conclusion that the meat has been improved into a safe level.
In the second place, the assumption that the stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country will be cut in half is unwarranted. There is evidence in this argument to show that the infections are caused by the unsafe meat-process. Many other factors may also bring about the same result. For example, the improper cook method of the meat or the incorrect storage of meat may be the main reason of the disease. And even if it is granted that the unsafe meat process is the reason, it is unwarranted to say that the infections will be cut in half if the government adopt more frequent inspections.
Last but not least, even if the qualities of the meat in the country has all improved, we cannot safe to draw the conclusion that consumers of EM will be safe because EM’s meat show the greatest improvement in eliminating bacteria. The possibility may exist that although EM makes the greatest progress in eliminating the bacteria, its quality may be still below the safe standard because EM’s former record is the poorest one. Without ruling out such possibility, it is unsafe to ensure that the consumers of EM will be safe from infections.
In the final analysis, the author’s conclusion is not compelling as it stands. To strengthen the conclusion, the author should cite more evidence to show that the quality of the meat has improved into a safe level. In addition, more supporting information should be provided to support that the consumers of EM will be safe from infections.
嘻嘻~吐多了...也就修成正果了...
楼主水平已经很高了，不用吐了：）
一个小建议：pig meat不就是pork吗？
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |