GRE—argument 81:吃吞拿鱼罐头，会产生健康风险吗？
The short passage:
81.The following appeared in a business magazine.
"As a result of numerous complaints of dizziness and nausea on the part of consumers of Promofoods tuna, the company requested that eight million cans of its tuna be returned for testing. Promofoods concluded that the canned tuna did not, after all, pose a health risk. This conclusion is based on tests performed on samples of the recalled cans by chemists from Promofoods; the chemists found that of the eight food 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 small amounts of the three remaining suspected chemicals but pointed out that these occur naturally in all canned foods."
The instruction:
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be addressed in order to decide whether the conclusion and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to the questions would help to evaluate the conclusion.
The sample answer:
Tests on recalled cans were conducted to prove Promofoods’ canned tuna is safe. After relevant tests, Promofoods concluded their canned tuna did not pose a health risk. However, without detecting a host of questions about the reliability of the experimental results, this conclusion could be implausible (开头无需多言).
By testing on canned tuna, Promofoods insisted the safety of its recalled products (此段是fact—>conclusion的单线推导).Now that chemists were assigned to do the tests, their testing result might be trustworthy. However, the thing is: are they willing to release an impartial result? It is highly possible that they spoke for their own company and concealed the truth （谁还没点袒护自己公司的小心思：））. Assuming they obeyed their work ethics, there is another question -- how could the adequacy of samples be ensured? If there were inadequate samples involved in tests, the result was clearly untrustworthy (取样需要考虑的个问题：取样是否充足？). Besides, whether were the samples selected randomly? There is a possibility that chemists took those comparatively fresh ones out for the sake of achieving ideal results （取样需要考虑的第二个问题：是否是随机取样？）.Finally, eight chemicals blamed for causing dizziness and nausea, five of which were not found in Promofoods' canned tuna. Yet, this is not optimistic but seemingly disappointing before asking: how many chemicals commonly blamed for these symptoms are there in total? Chemists might be aware of all of them but chose to tell a lie. Or because of their cognitive limitations, they were unknown about the remaining (对于化学家的认知问题的讨论展开两个角度，严谨又全面). Hence, these flaws detected make the conclusion unpersuasive.
The chemists argued that these suspected chemicals might generate in all canned foods （发现自己有问题，开始甩锅）.Though there are only small amounts of them in Promofoods’ canned tuna, it is suspicious: are these amounts safe to eaters? (小毛病，简洁地写写即可) Considering the symptoms ensued among consumers who took these products, it is of high possibility that these amounts surpass the safety line. Assuming this amount is safe, there comes another question – why were these chemicals blended in their cans? (提问的题型最重要的是提问的清晰度和概括性) Limitations in manufacturing techniques could be forgivable.（这是一处值得深思的让步—‘暴风雨’来临前的平静） Yet, the thing is there might be other culprits leading to this scenario. Both lapses in operations and unpleasing manufacturing environment could contribute to irresponsible production（‘暴风雨’来了）. Besides，shouldn’t the verification on performance of other canned food brands be included into the tests before arguing this takes place commonly in all canned foods? (问句再长逻辑也不乱) Clearly, it is too hasty to scold other brands before tackling the aforementioned questions. Thus, unlike other brands, Promofoods’ canned tuna might pose a health risk.
Conclusion
（略）
更多关于出国留学的个性化问题欢迎咨询新航道官网
