ARGUMENT 92 球拍，谢啦

DancingAme

92. Workersin the small town of Leeville take fewer sick days than workers in the largecity of Masonton, 50 miles away. Moreover, relative to populationsize, the diagnosis of stress-related illness is proportionally much lower inLeeville than in Masonton. According to the Leeville Chamber ofCommerce, these facts can be attributed to the health benefits of therelatively relaxed pace of life in Leeville.



Write aresponse in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that couldrival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) canplausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.

The argument concludes that in Leeville relativelyrelaxed pace of life benefits the health of people there. To support it, theauthor cites that people in Leeville take fewer sick days than in Masonton. He alsoclaims that relative to population size, the diagnosis of stress-relatedillness is proportionally much lower in Leeville. However, this argument isrife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to theconvincing conclusion.
 Citingthe fact that people in Leeville take fewer sick days, the author assumes thatworkers take sick days means they are sick. As we know that they may have totake care of relatives who are ill, children or parents. Or they are going toattend to some private affairs without a proper excuse, so they use the sickdays. These all have any relations with stress, but the author fails to takethem considered.
 Second,population is not the reason that causes stress-related illness. There are somany cities in the world, many of which have much larger population size thanMasonton, but, people there live comfortably as in Leeville. It's true thatcrowded condition may make people feel anxious; however other factors might beincluded. For example, people’s stresses in Matonson come from higher employmentpressure, much more fierce competition or higher price of commodities. Therefore,higher diagnosis of stress-related illness can’t be explained only by populationsize.  
 Thirdly,the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if population sizecan account for higher diagnosis of press–related illness, which is of courseunwarranted, it doesn’t follow that relative relaxed pace of life contributeshealth. The scope and validity of survey which is mentioned above is unclear. Maybethe data only covers a few people who suffer press-related illness for the highpace of life. On the contrary, the majority can manage it and gain more powerfrom the high pace. As we all know, health depends on many factors not onlyrelaxed pace of life. For instance, the quality of environment, perfect medicalfacilities and so on.
 In conclusion,the author fails to establish a casual relationship between population size anddiagnosis of stress-related illness, and fails to draw a firm conclusion onlyreferring to lower ratios of taking sick days and diagnosis of press-relatedillness. To strength the argument, the author would have to provide evidencethat people who take sick days not for other reasons and it is the populationsize that cause higher diagnosis of stress-related illness.  To better evaluate the argument, we would needmore information about the relationship between relaxed pace of life and betterhealth condition.

普渡哥

Second,population is not the reason that causes stress-related illness.

我觉得is not 换成may not be更合适，不然也犯the author的毛病了。