gre argument 165 提纲参考 9 U- N; k7 _; K: y
The following appeared in a business magazine. "As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness晕眩and nausea恶心, 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."
( a2 @0 v- O4 @6 p- L6 @/ u( M
0 |) R6 X, ~" L8 n/ t- S 1. Promofoods concludes that the cans did not contain chemicals that posed a health risk., which rests several gratuitous assumptions. First, the arguer points out that chemists did find three chemicals that most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea. However, the arguer does not provide any information that the quantity of these three chemical and whether these may do harms to the health of customers or not. Perhaps…$ u9 V9 J* O4 `# `% I0 h
1 R. c9 J4 t9 j
2. Besides, the chemists only tested 8 chemicals which commonly cause the symptoms of dizziness and nausea. Thus, this action may lead to neglect other factors which may also lead to dizziness and nausea and even bring about damages to the health of customers.5 N# Q3 b& I+ Z* k3 s1 F9 @6 ^7 N% _- n
: X3 i" q$ k0 B# a, U- } 3.即使说那些没害，且不含其他元素，该公司是不是出了其他产品，而这些产品导致顾客那些问题;而有没有经受检查 |
发表于 2012-8-15 12:52:21
