|
|
A recent study shows that people living on the continent of North America suffer 9 times more chronic fatigue and 31 times more chronic depression than do people living on the continent of Asia. Interestingly, Asians, on average, eat 20 grams of soy per day, whereas North Americans eat virtually none. It turns out that soy contains phytochemicals called isoflavones, which have been found to possess disease-preventing properties. Thus, North Americans should consider eating soy on a regular basis as a way of preventing fatigue and depression.
In this argument, the arguer cites a study showing that North Americans suffer from an amazingly higher rate of chronic fatigue and chronic depression than people living in Asia. From an unknown source, the arguer states that Asians eat much more soy than North Americans, who eat almost none, and that soy contains disease-preventing properties. The arguer then concludes his or her argument by stating that North Americans should consider regularly eating soy as a means of battling fatigue and depression. This argument suffers from at least four critical fallacies.
For the sake of this argument, we will assume that the studies and the statistics about North Americans' and Asians' soy eating habits are correct, and that isoflavones have been found to have disease-fighting properties. Given that, there is still a problem with the arguer directly correlating the eating of soy with the prevention of disease and depression. First of all, simply because soy may have disease-preventing properties, that does not mean that it can therefore fight chronic fatigue and chronic depression. Fatigue and depression may not actually even be considered as "diseases", therefore even given the fact that soy has disease-fighting properties, it would have no effect on the "nondiseases" of fatigue and depression. Secondly, even assuming that fatigue and depression are diseases, they are not specifically mentioned as diseases that soy or isoflavones are able to prevent. Perhaps soy can help prevent osteoporosis (bone loss), mumps or even chicken pox, but that does not mean that it can specifically address the problems of chronic fatigue and chronic depression. These two critical weaknesses alone make the argument unconvincing.
Furthermore, the arguer's conclusion is based on the idea that diet alone can prevent fatigue and depression by comparing the diets of North Americans and Asians. It is highly unlikely that diet alone is responsible for the tremendous difference in the rates of fatigue and depression between the two populations. Other factors such as lifes, occupations, residence in city or rural areas and levels of stress may play a much bigger factor than diet. Additionally, the arguer states that soy contains phytochemicals called isoflavones, which supposedly have disease-preventing properties. What is not stated, however, is whether these isoflavones are contained in a form in soy that is usable by the human body. It is possible that the particular configuration of the phytochemicals found in soy products is not usable by the human body, thereby producing no beneficial effects by people eating more soy products. In and of themselves, isoflavones may prevent certain diseases, but perhaps those found in soy are of no benefit to humans. By failing to address these possibilities, the arguer has presented an unconvincing argument.
In summary, the argument fails due to four major flaws in logic. First, "disease-preventing" properties does not mean "fatigue and depression" preventing properties. Secondly, fatigue and depression may not even be considered as diseases. Thirdly, the arguer ignores the probability that diet alone is not the sole reason behind the increased rates of fatigue and depression for North Americans as opposed to Asians. Finally, isoflavones as found in soy may not produce the same beneficial effects as when it is found in other forms. To strengthen the argument and conclusion, the arguer should present evidence that directly links diet to fatigue and depression as well as evidence that shows that soy can specifically prevent chronic fatigue and chronic depression in North Americans.
(576 words)
參考譯文
[題目]
一項最近的研究表明，居住在北美大陸上的人們要比居住在亞洲大陸上的人們患慢性疲倦和慢性憂鬱症的比例分別超出9倍和31倍。有意思的是，亞洲人平均每天只吃20克的大豆，而北美洲人卻幾乎一點都不吃。研究表明，大豆含有被稱為異黃酮的植物化學物，這些植物化學物經科學家研究，發現擁有防病特性。因此，北美洲人應該考慮經常性地吃大豆，以此作為一種防止疲勞和壓抑的方法。
[範文正文]
在本段論述中，論述者援引了一項研究來證明，北美洲人患慢性疲倦和慢性憂鬱症的比例要比居住在亞洲的人令人驚訝地高。從一項來源不明的資料中，作者陳述道，亞洲人所吃的大豆要遠多於北美人，而北美人則幾乎一點都不吃，而大豆卻含有防病的特性。論述者在其論述的結束處陳述首，北美人應考慮經常性地吃些大豆，以此作為一種抗疲勞和抗憂鬱的方法。本段論述至少犯下了四個關鍵性的邏輯謬誤。
為了論述的緣故，我們假定關於北美人和亞洲人吃大豆的習慣這方面的研究和數據是完全正確的，並且異黃酮確實被科學家發現具有防病功效。即使在承認這些條件的情況下，論述者將食用大豆與防止疾病和抵抗憂鬱直接聯繫起來，這一做法本身仍存在著問題。首先，即使大豆有可能具備防病特性，但這並非意味著它因此就能抵抗慢性疲倦和慢性憂鬱症。疲倦和憂鬱實際上甚至還不可能被視作"疾病"，因此，儘管大豆具有防病作用屬實，但它對於疲倦和憂鬱這些"非疾病"可能毫無作用。其次，即使我們假定疲倦和憂鬱可被視為疾病，但它們沒有被具體提到是屬於大豆或異黃酮所能預防的那類病症。或許，大豆可以預防骨質疏鬆症，流行性腮腺炎或甚至是水痘，但這並非意味著它能具體地治療慢性疲倦和慢性憂鬱症這樣一些問題。這二個關鍵性的弱點本身就足以使得該論述缺乏可信度。
進而言之，論述者的結論所依據的是這樣一個理念，即通過比較北美人和亞洲人的飲食，飲食本身可以來防止疲倦和憂鬱。但很難想象飲食本身造成了兩類人口之間患上疲倦和憂鬱症比例方面的巨大差異。其他諸多因素，如生活方式，職業，居住在都市還是鄉村，以及壓力程度所產生的影響可能要比飲食大得多。此外，論述者陳述道，大豆含有一種可被稱為異黃酮的植物化學物，據稱具有防病功效。但論述者沒有作出陳述，即這些異黃酮是否是以一種被人體使用的方式被包含在大豆中。有可能是，大豆產品中所發現的植物化學物，其特定的結構並不能為人體所利用，從而對食用較多大豆產品的人並不能產生任何益處。就其本身而言，異黃酮或許可能預防某些疾病，但大豆中所發現的異黃酮對人類毫無益處，這也是有可能的。由於沒有探究這些可能性，論述者所擺出的這段論述便失去了說服力。
總的說來，本段論述因為四大邏輯缺陷而難以站得住腳。首先，"防病"特性並不能等同於"疲倦和憂鬱症"預防特性。其次，疲倦和憂鬱甚至還不能被視為疾病。第三，論述者忽視了這樣一種可能性，即飲食本身並不是造成北美人相對於亞洲人疲倦與憂鬱症比例上升的唯一原因。最後，大豆中所被發現的異黃酮可能並不能產生與在其他形式中所發現的異黃酮相同的益處。若要增強其論點和結論的力度，論述者應該拿出證據，將飲食與疲倦及憂鬱直接聯繫起來，且提供證據來證明大豆能具體地防止北美人的慢性疲倦和慢性憂鬱症。 |
|
樓主: bluepolish
狗仔卡
樓主
