Argument 题号：81 题目：As a result of numerous complaints of dizziness and nausea on the part of consumers of Promofoods tuna, the company requested that eight million cans of its tuna be returned for testing. Promofoods concluded that the canned tuna did not, after all, pose a health risk. This conclusion is based on tests performed on samples of the recalled cans by chemists from Promofoods; the chemists found that of the eight food chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find small amounts of the three remaining suspected chemicals but pointed out that these occur naturally in all canned foods. 写作要求：Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be addressed in order to decide whether the conclusion and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to the questions would help to evaluate the conclusion.
This argument is well presented but far-fetched. It lays a conclusion that the canned tuna did not pose a health risk, because of tests performed by chemists proved. The argument is in effect definitely impractical due to several flaws after a close scrutiny, albeit it may appear plausible at a cursory glance. First off, a threshold problem comes into being in this argument that the author claims that five of the eight food chemicals most seen as causes of symptoms of dizziness and nausea were not found while only three of them were located but they are common in all canned foods. However, this contention is open to a number interpretation. We would never know were other chemicals been able to cause dizziness and nausea except only these five chemicals. The author apparently assumes that the five chemicals could represent most chemicals, but what he ignores is that the causes of dizziness and nausea exist not only in the foods but everywhere as long as radioactive, for example. Could the cans themselves result in dizziness and nausea? Would the tunas in the cans be compatible with the three existing chemicals in case that they might not induce a chemical reaction in the cans? Without accounting for and ruling out other likely scenarios, by no means could the author claims that the canned tunas are not responsible for dizziness and nausea. Moreover, even though the author could provide evidence for us to deduce a solution to the problem presented above afterwards, it’s still ill-conceived owing to another problem that we don’t know the process and details concerning the research extracted from this argument. It’s totally possible that the research was roughly designed as well as performed that it got wrong statistics. To corroborate his point, the author should pay a close heed to as well as cope with the representative alternatives—such as possible weakly performance of the researchers—only then could he bolster the conclusion. Finally, even if the foregoing assumptions could turn out to be supported by ensuing evidence, a crucial problem remains that the author clearly assumes the symptoms of dizziness and nausea are equal to health risks. It’s reasonable to cast doubts upon the author’s presumption which I reject as inadequate. For instance, the author omits to inform us that if there might be other symptoms related to the term “health risks.” Pursuing this line of reasoning, it proves to be the author’s responsibility to mull over his recommendation so as to pave the way for a more convincing argument. In retrospect, the author seems precipitous to jump to the conclusion based on a series of problematic assumptions leading to several questions. To dismiss the specter of implausibility in this argument, the author ought to come to grips with the problems mentioned above. Only by grasping the gist of making correct assumptions could the author draw a convincible conclusion. After all, feckless attempts with a fallible method could be nothing but merely a fool’s errand.
In this argument, Promofoods concludes that the canned tuna did not cause any health problem for the reason that the tests performed on the recalled cans proved that among the eight food chemicals which most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, only small amounts of three was detected but claimed existing in all canned foods. The argument stands on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions which render it unconvincing.
A threshold problem with this argument involves the statistical significance of the test. The author provides no evidence about how many batches of products, as well as the number of samples in each batch performed in the test, as we all know there might be significant differences between each batches and insufficient samples would result in unreliable conclusion.
The mere fact that other canned foods also containing the three chemicals which may cause physical discomfort but never receive complaints does not necessarily equate to the Promofoods canned tuna is health harmless. Perhaps the amounts of such chemicals in other canned foods are less than Promofoods, or perhaps they might contain only one or two at most of such chemicals which Promofoods containing all them three. Without a quantitative comparison, it is unfair to conclude the Promofoods are harmless to health.
Moreover, as the author mentioned in the argument, it seems like the test only involves in chemicals detection. However, in common sense, not only the toxic chemicals could result in physical discomfort but also microbes, like some viruses and bacteria. The chemical test alone would not be enough to draw a sound conclusion, at least biological test should be performed as well, and maybe radioactive substance test should be added due to the radioactive pollution in seas and oceans especially after the tsunami in Japan.
Finally, even though the amounts of the three chemicals in Promofoods tuna are not enough to cause health problem and no harmful microbes and radioactive substances are found, the author overlooks another possible reason – the chemists’ intentional partiality to their employer, or even worse they might be forced to announce a falsified conclusion. Without ruling out such possibility, such as by means that the whole tests are under monitor of a third organization, the author cannot convince me that the conclusion is objective, justified and without manipulated by the company.
In sum, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it the author needs to provide better evidence on the tests are reasonable in both statistical significance and measures used, as well as are objective and impartial. To better assess this argument, I would need to know (1) the number of batches and samples has been tested, (2) a quantitative analysis data regarding the amounts and categories of the three chemicals both in Promofoods and other companies, (3) the result of biological test, and (4) the impartiality of the conclusion.作者: ppguo 时间: 2011-10-7 05:01
赞一下“josie0710”的“4. 质疑公司内部化学师的报告是否公正，没有第三方监督” 还有一点。都“dizzness & nausea” 了， 还下结论说没有health risk. 这一点很ridiculous （这个词千万不能用，有歧视嫌疑）。难道住院了才能叫有“health risk". 所以prefood的结论显然是跟事实不符合。作者: 大剑Jade 时间: 2011-10-7 11:46 josie0710我是想说你的第三点提的很给力啊，另外其他的点也非常清晰，不过有一点建议就是，不必说上四点，三点足矣，只要每一点都能develop起来，现在感觉你每一段都没有develop起来，虽然说的很透彻，但至少篇幅上看就不太够。作者: josie0710 时间: 2011-10-7 12:35
你说的有道理啊，我也觉得文章写的像提纲，关键是没词儿了～再往下写无非就是罗利巴索凑字，基本功弱一两天也练不出来，这是我最闹心的作者: 冷月钟笛 时间: 2011-10-7 21:43
第四点质疑公正性的确令人赞叹~ 很漂亮的一个观点！作者: 冷月钟笛 时间: 2011-10-7 21:44
嗯 大剑说得有道理，第一点统计有效性的话可以略写，后面的两个观点可以进一步sub扩展一下~