就快考试了,现在时间还把握不好,40多分钟......如何是好啊????
argument 36
题目:
The following report 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 represent the most frequently given reason 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.
要求:
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
正文:
In this argument,the author concludes that eating a substantial amount of fish can help toprevent colds. To support this conclusion, the author cites a result of a studycarried out in nearby East Meria which indicates that people in East Meria,where fish consumption is high, suffer little cold every year. Based on thisconclusion, the author recommends us to popularize Ichthaid in West Meria forpreventing colds and diminishing absenteeism. In my point of view, thisargument suffers several logical problems, which render it unconvincing as itstands. First of all, theauthor assumes that the lower rate of catching a cold in East Meria merely dueto the habit of eating fish rather than some other factors. However, there isno evidence provided in this letter to substantiate this assumption. Lacingsuch evidence, it is entirely possible that people in East Meria pay moreattention on donging daily exercising which render them more healthy thanpeople in West Meria, or perhaps that the weather in East Meria in moreclement, and thus the risk for colds is relative low. All of theseprobabilities, if true, will undermine the author' conclusion that frequentlyeating fish will help to prevent cold, unless the he or she can provide moreinformation about the study. Secondly, even if eatingfish is the unique reason for preventing colds in West Meria, the author alsoassumes, without supporting evidence, that there is no differences between EastMeria and West Meria. Perhaps, people in East Meia always intake special foodwhich is absent in the diet of people in West Meria, and this food can impede absorbingthe useful substance in fish, if so, this innovative treatment will not beeffective in West Meria as it works in East Meria. Thirdly, even ifthe new treatment is suitable to the people in West Meria, to convince me thatIchthtaid, which is full of fish oil, can help to prevent colds, the authorwould have to provide evidence to prove that the effective components in fishwhich serve to resist cold only derives from fish oil. As we know, there are agreat many of components in fish, and most of them can benefit the health ofpeople. If the effect components in not contained in fish oil, the author'srecommendation for have Ichthtaid is untenable. Finally, theauthor assumes that people who absent from school or workplace really becausethey are suffering colds. However, as we know, having cold is usually cited asan excuse by people who have to tackle some private affairs without beingpunished. Therefore, unless the author can prove to substantiate his assumptionabout absenteeism, the credibility of this argument will be weakened. In sum, thisargument is unpersuasive. To lend a credible hand, the author would have toprovide more information as follows: 1) Eating fish is the unique reason forthe low rate of cold in East Meria, 2) the innovative treatment will be equaleffective in West Meria, 3) the effective component in fish are focus in fishoil. In addition, in order assess the merit of this argument, I have to knowwhether catching cold is the real reason for absenteeism or quite often anexcuse in West Meira.
|