argu 81， 第一次，求狠拍！

aimpple

The following appeared in abusiness magazine.

As a result of numerouscomplaints of dizziness and nausea on the part of consumers of Promofoods tuna,the company requested that eight million cans of its tuna be returned fortesting. Promofoods concluded that the canned tuna did not, after all, pose ahealth risk. This conclusion is based on tests performed on samples of therecalled cans by chemists from Promofoods; the chemists found that of the eightfood chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness andnausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did findsmall amounts of the three remaining suspected chemicals but pointed out thatthese occur naturally in all canned foods."

Write a response in whichyou discuss what questions would need to be addressed in order to decidewhether the conclusion and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Besure to explain how the answers to the questions would help to evaluate theconclusion.


In the argument, the author argues that the dizziness and nausea of theconsumers is not caused by Promofoods tuna, which seems to be extremelyconvincing at first glance. However, we would find that the evidence providedby the author is in fact ill-conceived after inspecting it clearly. The authorfails to constitute a logical statement to support the conclusion, and doesn'tprovide a compelling support making this argument sound and invulnerable.

The primary problem in this argument is that it is based on aninsufficient assumption. The author assumes that only the eight most commonlyblamed chemicals could be the reason of the consumers' dizziness and nausea.Although it is possible in general, persuasive evidence is absent. What if someother unknown chemicals contained in the food that could also cause thesymptoms? If these chemicals exist, the food will surely be dangerous tohealth, and the test result from the Promofoods will surely be problematic. Soif the company really wants to figure out what is the genuine reason, theyshould conduct more experiments. It would stay unfounded for the conclusioninvolved in this argument until further evidence is provided to rule outpossibilities like this.

Secondly, the oversimplified extrapolation that small amounts of thethree remaining suspected chemicals occurred in the foods is normal, which isnot guaranteed to be exact, also weakens this argument because no evidence isprovided that all canned foods contain these chemicals. As these threechemicals are included in the "most commonly blamed for causing symptomsof dizziness and nausea", it is quite possible that the symptoms arecaused by them. If the author want to deny this, he should, at least, constructcontrols to show whether the small amount of the chemicals could make them lessdangerous and all canned foods contain these chemicals naturally. Things rarelyremain the same in different situation, so more facets should be considered tomake the logic compelling.

The last but not the least important, even if all the foregoingfallacies, which are surely unwarranted, can be substantiated by the author, aquestion still exists: is the result really reflected the true situation? Asthe experiments are performed by the chemists from Promofoods, we cannot figureout if these chemists are disinterested or not. And the author doesn't mentionhow many examples are included in the experiments, either. If not enoughexamples are involved, then the result also deserves our suspects. So in allcircumstances, the author's proposal is not adoptable.

To sum up, the conclusion involved in this argument lacks credibilityas the evidence cited in the analysis is either subjective or limited, thusresulting in an ignorance of many aspects. In order to strengthen theconclusion, the author should consider the factors discussed above, at anyrate. (40min)

普渡哥

In the argument, the author argues that the dizziness and nausea of theconsumers is not caused by Promofoods tuna, which seems to be extremelyconvincing at first glance. However,

however前面应该是逗号吧？

aimpple

In the argument, the author argues that the dizziness and nausea of theconsumers is not caused by Promofoods tuna, which seems to be extremelyconvincing at first glance. However,

however前面应该是逗号吧？

-- by 会员 普渡哥 (2012/11/28 11:47:01)

嗯，谢谢普渡哥~~

竹林中人

In the argument, the author argues that the dizziness andnausea of the consumers is not caused by Promo foods tuna, which seems to beextremely convincing at first glance. However, we would find that the evidenceprovided by the author is in fact ill-conceived after inspecting it clearly.The author fails to constitute a logical statement to support the conclusion,and doesn't provide a compelling support making this argument sound andinvulnerable.

Theprimary problem in this argument is that it is based on an insufficientassumption. 这里我觉得你要指明哪一点依据到结论是存在这个前提的，而不是笼统地说这个argu存在什么前提The authorassumes that only the eight most commonly blamed chemicals could be the reasonof the consumers' dizziness and nausea. Although it is possible in general,persuasive evidence is absent. What if some other unknown chemicals containedin the food that could also cause the symptoms? If these chemicals exist, thefood will surely be dangerous to health, and the test result from the Promo foodswill surely be problematic. So if the company really wants to figure out whatis the genuine reason, they should conduct more experiments. It would stayunfounded for the conclusion involved in this argument until further evidenceis provided to rule out possibilities like this.

Secondly,the oversimplified extrapolation that small amounts of the three remainingsuspected chemicals occurred in the foods is normal, which is not guaranteed tobe exact, also weakens this argument because no evidence is provided that allcanned foods contain these chemicals. As these three chemicals are included inthe "most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness andnausea", it is quite possible that the symptoms are caused by them. If theauthor want to deny this, he should, at least, construct controls to showwhether the small amount of the chemicals could make them less dangerous andall canned foods contain these chemicals naturally. Things rarely remain thesame in different situation, so more facets should be considered to make thelogic compelling.

Thelast but not the least important, even if all the foregoingfallacies, which aresurely unwarranted, can be substantiated by the author, a question stillexists: is the result really reflected the true situation? As the experimentsare performed by the chemists from Promofoods, we cannot figureout if thesechemists are disinterested or not. And theauthor doesn't mentionhow many examples are included in the experiments,either. If not enoughexamples are involved, then the result also deserves oursuspects. So in allcircumstances, the author's proposal is not adoptable.

Tosum up, the conclusion involved in this argument lacks credibilityas theevidence cited in the analysis is either subjective or limited, thusresultingin an ignorance of many aspects. In order to strengthen theconclusion, theauthor should consider the factors discussed above, at anyrate. (40min)
推理中存在最大的问题是你指出由于缺少evidence或者存在问题，因而argument不可信，然后就接着指出其它的可能性，这个过渡是太快了，中间还需要继续说的，你认为什么样的evidence才是有效的或者对存在的问题有什么样的说吗argu才是合理的，然后再说由于没有，所以argu的结论不是唯一的，也可能有其他结论。