This is my first argument during preparing for GRE. Please mark it and give me some suggestions.
Thanks a lot!!
The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites. A total of five sites and 300 people were examined. The study revealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. Furthermore, although it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Therefore, the council is pleased to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. We see no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.
My argument:
In this argument, the arguer asserts that it is no need to restrict the sizes of such sites in our state or to place any restriction on the number of homes built near the sites. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites a study involving five sites and 300 people. And the survey revealed that only a small statistical correlation exists between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes, and that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes. However, according to several flaws in the study and no evidence of failing to engender serious healthy threat based rubbish grounds in the future, the argument is unconvincing.
Firstly, the speaker fails to provide complete information of the survey. Because of lacking the totality of garbage sites and people living near sites in the states, whether the data can reflect the statewide fact is questioned. Maybe the quantity of sample is limited in term of the totality in the state. Besides, due to lacking the statement about the five sites, the sites locate possibly in some special environment, thereby failing to reflect the fact all over the state.
Secondly，even if the five sites are selected randomly, the survey also make no difference. On a hand, the aim of study is finding the possible harmful effects of trash sites on health of people. But the date of the incidence of rashes can not reflect all unhealthy effects. For example, imaging a person living near the garbage site who has no rashes is suffering lung cancer. On the other hand, the council announced that the current system of trash sites does not pose a significant health hazard. No rashes do not mean no significant health hazard, considering above example.
Finally, even if the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard now, who can ensure no danger in the future? Because no evidence about no significant health hazard aroused by trash sites in the future, the announcement of council is unconvincing. Maybe some bad effects on health exist all the time, but not yet lead to significant disease.
In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the speaker should provide the total amount of garbage sites and people living near them in the state. The arguer must cite the data of significant health hazard to prove whether the current system of garbage sites will pose a serious danger of health. Besides, if the argument could provide an evidence of no serious healthy threat based trash sites in the future, the argument would be better supported.
Thanks a lot!!
The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites. A total of five sites and 300 people were examined. The study revealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. Furthermore, although it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Therefore, the council is pleased to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. We see no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.
My argument:
In this argument, the arguer asserts that it is no need to restrict the sizes of such sites in our state or to place any restriction on the number of homes built near the sites. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites a study involving five sites and 300 people. And the survey revealed that only a small statistical correlation exists between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes, and that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes. However, according to several flaws in the study and no evidence of failing to engender serious healthy threat based rubbish grounds in the future, the argument is unconvincing.
Firstly, the speaker fails to provide complete information of the survey. Because of lacking the totality of garbage sites and people living near sites in the states, whether the data can reflect the statewide fact is questioned. Maybe the quantity of sample is limited in term of the totality in the state. Besides, due to lacking the statement about the five sites, the sites locate possibly in some special environment, thereby failing to reflect the fact all over the state.
Secondly，even if the five sites are selected randomly, the survey also make no difference. On a hand, the aim of study is finding the possible harmful effects of trash sites on health of people. But the date of the incidence of rashes can not reflect all unhealthy effects. For example, imaging a person living near the garbage site who has no rashes is suffering lung cancer. On the other hand, the council announced that the current system of trash sites does not pose a significant health hazard. No rashes do not mean no significant health hazard, considering above example.
Finally, even if the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard now, who can ensure no danger in the future? Because no evidence about no significant health hazard aroused by trash sites in the future, the announcement of council is unconvincing. Maybe some bad effects on health exist all the time, but not yet lead to significant disease.
In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the speaker should provide the total amount of garbage sites and people living near them in the state. The arguer must cite the data of significant health hazard to prove whether the current system of garbage sites will pose a serious danger of health. Besides, if the argument could provide an evidence of no serious healthy threat based trash sites in the future, the argument would be better supported.
