Argument36 求拍

DREAMER003 · 发表于 2012-4-7 17:25:05

5.13母亲节大阪考，Argument第一篇未限时

题目A36

The following report appeared in the newsletter of theWest Meria Public Health Council.

"An innovative treatment has come to our attentionthat promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools andworkplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria,where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twiceper year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount offish can prevent colds. Since colds represent the most frequentlygiven reason for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid—anutritional supplement derived from fish oil—as a good way to prevent colds andlower absenteeism."

Write a response in which you discuss whatspecific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how theevidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

求指导
This argument appears to be sound at first glance, but further reflectionreveals that it is far from thoroughly reasonable. While eating a wealth offish might help prevent colds according to the study, the author fails toestablish its causal relationship with absenteeism in schools and workplaces,not to mention the supplement Ichthaid derived from fish oil. As far as I amconcerned, the argument suffers from the following flaws which render it unpersuasiveas it stands.

In the argument, the author claims that colds represent the most frequently given reason forabsences from school and work. Based upon this assumption, theauthor implies that in order to reduce absenteeism, efforts should be made tothe prevention of colds. However, there is no direct evidence to support that colds have any crucial relationship withpeople’s absences even though they constantly give the reason of colds. It ispossible that a number of people might merely take colds as an excuse for their absences.Also, probably they mistake it for colds while actually they suffer from adisease with similar symptoms which may have confused them. Moreover, itis unknown where and how this assumption is concluded. Maybe it comes from a biasedsurvey, where only a small amount of people are selected. Only does the author provide sufficientinformation to demonstrate that absenteeism has significant connections withcolds, can he or she assert that absences would be reduced by preventing colds.

Citing a study in nearby East Meria, the author draws the conclusion that colds can be prevented by eatingplenty of fish. In this study, it is reported that in nearby East Meria where fish consumption is very high, people only get treatedfor colds once or twice every year. But this study has not established a directrelationship between eating more fish and getting fewer colds. We do not knowthat people there rarely visit the doctor for colds because they consumesubstantial amount of fish or it is owing to other reasons. Perhaps people inEast Meria like sports and they are in good health, so they seldom catch colds,rather than because they eat fish in large quantities. Besides, it is possiblethat not everybody would go to see a doctor even when having a cold. It is alsounclear what amount of fish do these people studied eat everyday and whichpercentage of them only need to get treated for colds once or twice every year.Thus, without rendering more understandable evidences ensure that more fishlead to fewer colds, this study cannot sufficiently substantiate that peoplecan prevent colds by eating plenty of fish.

Finally, granted that eating volumes of fishcan prevent colds and improve attendance, yet we cannot conclude that thesupplement Ichthaid would be as effective asfish. Although Ichthaid is derived from fish oil, this argument reveals noproof that Ichthaid would have the same effect as fish on preventing colds, andespecially fish has so diverse compositions that it is indefinite if it is fishoil that can prevent colds. The author would have to provide potent evidencethat this supplement can prevent colds in the same way as fish does.

Overall, this argument lacks sufficientevidence to show that people are absent from school and work actually becausethey catch colds and by eating plenty of fish they can prevent colds, and thenimprove attendance. In addition, an investigation is necessary to demonstratethat the supplement Ichthaid has the same effect as fish on preventing colds.

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-4-7 17:43:30

感觉Lz写的很不错啊，每段都写得很到位。不知道LZ这是第几篇啊？

DREAMER003 · 发表于 2012-4-7 18:31:14

第一篇，得到版主赞许顿时踏实了很多啊，感激。。。不知道有没有什么需要改进的地方，求指导

Jugg · 发表于 2012-4-8 22:09:38

受教了感觉很条理
不知道我按lz说的反过来写怎么样
就是
E地区的treatment和fish关系需要证据（调查准确性、体质本身好、有病不看）
即使有关系，E地区和W地区可比性需要证据（环境、人的数量、体质）
即使可比，supplement物质预防cold需要证据（用量、作用）
即使能预防，cold和absent关系也需要证据（最重要的一点）

最近一直在练让步式的攻击。。。

DREAMER003 · 发表于 2012-4-9 10:53:04

让步式的辩证同样能很好的攻击这篇A，只不过我觉得这些个逻辑错误应该有不同的重要度和侧重性，
所以就按重要度的高低依次进行了批判，以达到最强的攻击力。
这个想法是借鉴了一个前辈的。
当然，你的写法前后承接性也很强，每个人都可以按自己的方法来写。

[argument] Argument36 求拍

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()