argu 36

桌子上的梨 · 发表于 2012-10-24 16:51:28

The author concludes that the daily use of Ichthaid can prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To justify this conclusion, he cites a study report in which in nearby East Meria the fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. And Ichthain is a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil. He also points out colds represent the most frequently given reason for absences.Granted that it seems to be somewhat appealing, the argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the author presumes that the study report can represent the reality of East Meria. However, he fails to consider and rule out some alternative explanations. If this survey was self-reported or the questions were leading, the results will be open to doubt. Meanwhile, we should consider how broad the survey was. If the survey was limited to just younger citizens, the results might be applied to those people. Hence, the generalization drawn might not attribute to most people. Or perhaps it's not people in East Meria catch less cold but there are so few doctors per person that they are reluctant or inconvenient to see doctors when they are ill. Unless the author can demonstrate that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely, the conclusion is open to doubt.

Furthermore, the arguer arrives at the conclusion that the daily use of Ichthaid can be a good way to prevent cold, he assumes that the nutritional supplement derived from fish oil can function the same as fish, but he fails to prove that this is the case. Perhaps, other elements in fish make people stronger and less possible to catch a cold. Or Ichthaid has side effect while preventing cold. Lacking more specific information about the risk of Ichthaid, it is impossible to evaluate the reliability of the argument or to make any solid recommendation.

In addition to these serious problems, even if all the foregoing assumptions are justified, the author just simply assumes that less cold means lower absenteeism, and neither any anecdotal evidence nor any explainable scientific evidence is provided to prove this. Experience informs us that cold can be an excuse. And if the cold is fewer, there will be new excuse for absenteeism. Any of these scenarios, if true, will cast considerable doubts on the author's argument.

In sum, the author fails to constitute a solid argument in favor of the recommendation. To bolster it, the author should show 1)the study report is reliable;(2) how to use Ichthaid to prevent cold;(3) cold is the real reason why the absenteeism is high.

[作文互改] argu 36

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()