close
在生氣之下 吃完飯又寫了一篇..結果還是ㄘㄨㄚˋ賽..>"< 氣死我了
Argument165 第14篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户 共用时间：30分1秒 255 words
从2004年2月27日18时8分到2004年2月27日18时30分
------题目------
The following appeared in a business magazine.
'As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods.'
------正文------
In this argument, the author concluded that cans of tuna did not contain chenicals which might result in disease. To justify this conclusion, several evidence were used. Profofoods found that five of the eight chemicals which were blamed for causing dizziness and nausea are not in recalled cans. Besides, three remaining chemicals were discovered in all other kinds of canned foods. It seems plausible; however, there existed several fallacies in this argument after my analysis.
It is a proper and appreciate way for Promofoods to test whether eight million of cans contain suspected chemicals or not; nevertheless, an significant number is not provided -- the number of recalled cans. There are eight million cans in the markets ,and the test report will be not convincible if the number of recalled cans is not specified clearly. Besides, Promofoods also did not interpret the process their experts examine those recalled cans. It is possible for Promofoods to receive good results on account of all tested cans without suspected chemicals fortunately. fortunately As a result, Promofoods may get the wrong conclusion as a result incorrect way of choose samples and conduct the testing process. That is to say, more statistical data is needed to prove the certainty of this test.
Moreover, according to the test, five of eight suspected chemicals were not found in tested cans, however, three remaining ones were discovered in them. The author thought that it is sufficient to demonstrate the reliabiliy of the conclusion;on the conttrary, there was a serous problem. Even if three remaining chemicals were found in all other kinds of canned foods, it is not proper to insist that these three chemicals will not cause dizziness and nausea. Maybe canned foods produced by Promofoods consist of too many these three chemicals, and high percentage of them will damage poeple's health. Therefore, more information is needed to complement this fallacy.
In sum, Promofoods must collect more information to support its point of view. By complement fallacies mentioned above -- statistical datas, effects of three suspected chemicals --, this argument will become more persuasive.
Argument165 第14篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户 共用时间：30分1秒 255 words
从2004年2月27日18时8分到2004年2月27日18时30分
------题目------
The following appeared in a business magazine.
'As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods.'
------正文------
In this argument, the author concluded that cans of tuna did not contain chenicals which might result in disease. To justify this conclusion, several evidence were used. Profofoods found that five of the eight chemicals which were blamed for causing dizziness and nausea are not in recalled cans. Besides, three remaining chemicals were discovered in all other kinds of canned foods. It seems plausible; however, there existed several fallacies in this argument after my analysis.
It is a proper and appreciate way for Promofoods to test whether eight million of cans contain suspected chemicals or not; nevertheless, an significant number is not provided -- the number of recalled cans. There are eight million cans in the markets ,and the test report will be not convincible if the number of recalled cans is not specified clearly. Besides, Promofoods also did not interpret the process their experts examine those recalled cans. It is possible for Promofoods to receive good results on account of all tested cans without suspected chemicals fortunately. fortunately As a result, Promofoods may get the wrong conclusion as a result incorrect way of choose samples and conduct the testing process. That is to say, more statistical data is needed to prove the certainty of this test.
Moreover, according to the test, five of eight suspected chemicals were not found in tested cans, however, three remaining ones were discovered in them. The author thought that it is sufficient to demonstrate the reliabiliy of the conclusion;on the conttrary, there was a serous problem. Even if three remaining chemicals were found in all other kinds of canned foods, it is not proper to insist that these three chemicals will not cause dizziness and nausea. Maybe canned foods produced by Promofoods consist of too many these three chemicals, and high percentage of them will damage poeple's health. Therefore, more information is needed to complement this fallacy.
In sum, Promofoods must collect more information to support its point of view. By complement fallacies mentioned above -- statistical datas, effects of three suspected chemicals --, this argument will become more persuasive.
全站熱搜
留言列表
Old Stuff (1)
