argument 152 病假少由于生活放松
13291
The author includes that the reason why workers in Leeville are healthy is because of their more relax lifestyle. To support this inclusion, the author goes to a further explanation which inform us plenty of evidence, such as low sick days and minor stress-related illness diagnosis. Then the author assents with the positive influence of Leeville lifestyle, which is indicated by Leeville Chamber of Commerce. However, this argument is a specious one, which contain many logical flaws in reasoning. The reasons are stated as follows.
First, the author relies on a assumption that taking minor sick days means a healthier life condition of workers. However, there is no evidence could substantiate this assumption. It is very likely that serious regulation, which is enacted by workshop in Leeville, is the mayor cause of taking minor sick days in workers. Another appropriate example is also not very far to seek. Maybe the workers in Leeville do not want to take sick days because of their dearth income, which means they prefer work for their income to take sick days with no financial support. Since the author do not provide enough evidence to rule out those alternative explanations, I can not be convinced that workers in Leeville are more heathier.
Second, the author bases on a observation of minor stress-related diagnosis and believes that it is a evidence of heathier life-condition in Leeville. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case, and the author does not supply any evidence to confirm this assumption. It is quite possible that shortage hospital and financial privation lead to the fact. In addition, even if workers in Leeville do have less stress-related diagnosis, it is still too hasty to indicate workers there are more heathier. Proportion of other type illness, exclusive stress-related disease, might high in Leeville. What is more, some illness, such as migraine and stomach disease, are present because of chronic stress-related illness. As a result, without ruling out those alternative explanations, the author can not bolster this statement and this argument is unwarranted at best.
Third, even if the workers in Leeville are more heathier, the author can not convince me that this health benefits are related to Leeville relaxed pace of life. To attain the heathier condition of workers in Leeville, many other fundamental requirements should be taken, such as comfortable working place and humanity workshop management. Furthermore, other available explanations besides relaxed pace of life could also lead to the same result. High disease protection consciousness and remedy convenience may play a positive role to promote health condition of workers in Leeville. So I can not be swayed by the statement in the passage unless the author can convince me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely.
In sum, this argument is unconvinced as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should provide more information regarding to reason of minor sick days in worker. To better evaluate it, the author also should inform us more warranted evidence to indicate the fact of workers healthy condition. What is more, to better access the argument, I need more valid evidence about interpretation of those alternative explanations. The arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.
First, the author relies on a assumption that taking minor sick days means a healthier life condition of workers. However, there is no evidence could substantiate this assumption. It is very likely that serious regulation, which is enacted by workshop in Leeville, is the mayor cause of taking minor sick days in workers. Another appropriate example is also not very far to seek. Maybe the workers in Leeville do not want to take sick days because of their dearth income, which means they prefer work for their income to take sick days with no financial support. Since the author do not provide enough evidence to rule out those alternative explanations, I can not be convinced that workers in Leeville are more heathier.
Second, the author bases on a observation of minor stress-related diagnosis and believes that it is a evidence of heathier life-condition in Leeville. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case, and the author does not supply any evidence to confirm this assumption. It is quite possible that shortage hospital and financial privation lead to the fact. In addition, even if workers in Leeville do have less stress-related diagnosis, it is still too hasty to indicate workers there are more heathier. Proportion of other type illness, exclusive stress-related disease, might high in Leeville. What is more, some illness, such as migraine and stomach disease, are present because of chronic stress-related illness. As a result, without ruling out those alternative explanations, the author can not bolster this statement and this argument is unwarranted at best.
Third, even if the workers in Leeville are more heathier, the author can not convince me that this health benefits are related to Leeville relaxed pace of life. To attain the heathier condition of workers in Leeville, many other fundamental requirements should be taken, such as comfortable working place and humanity workshop management. Furthermore, other available explanations besides relaxed pace of life could also lead to the same result. High disease protection consciousness and remedy convenience may play a positive role to promote health condition of workers in Leeville. So I can not be swayed by the statement in the passage unless the author can convince me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely.
In sum, this argument is unconvinced as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should provide more information regarding to reason of minor sick days in worker. To better evaluate it, the author also should inform us more warranted evidence to indicate the fact of workers healthy condition. What is more, to better access the argument, I need more valid evidence about interpretation of those alternative explanations. The arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.
1条回复