Topic
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 statistical1 correlation2 between the proximity3 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 restrictions4 on the number of homes built near the sites.
Sample Essay
In this argument, the council comes to the conclusion that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard and that therefore, there is no need to restrict the size of the garbage sites or the number of homes built near the site. To support this conclusion, the council cites a study of five garbage sites and three hundred people that showed only a small correlation between the closeness of the homes to the sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among those people living there. Additionally, the council came to this conclusion despite the fact that people living near the largest such site had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes. This argument suffers from several critical weaknesses in logic5 and information presented.
First of all, the members of the Trash-Site Safety Council are not listed, which could make a big difference in the believability of the study. A truly independent council could produce results that could be considered much more reliable than one with members with possible conflicts of interest. However, if the council were made up mainly of people who have an interest in finding that there is no problem with the trash sites - homebuilders or city councilmen, for example - then the study would lack some credibility. Without knowing the backgrounds and priorities of the council members, the argument is greatly weakened.
Secondly6, this was cited as a statewide study, but only five sites and three hundred people were studied. Although on average there was only a small statistical correlation shown between the nearness of the trash sites and the homes and people who lived in them, the margin7 of error could be quite large due to studying only a small sample of people that live near the trash sites in the state. It would be much more persuasive8 were a large majority of the homes and people near trash sites studied rather than merely a small percentage.
Furthermore, the study cites only unexplained rashes as a health-related problem with some statistical correlation. The presence or absence of other types of health problems is not mentioned in the study. It could be that there were other, perhaps not immediately noticeable health problems such as cancer affecting the people living near the sites. Additionally, the study appears to cover only one moment in time, or at least the duration of the study is not discussed. Perhaps there are long-term effects that cannot be discovered by a study conducted over a short period of time. This weakens the argument by leaving out information that could help to persuade the reader one way or another.
To add to the lack of credibility, the study does not discuss the relative size of the garbage sites or how close the homes and people were to the sites. There is really no data present to allow a proper decision to be made restricting the size of the sites or how close the homes could be located near the trash sites. At the very least, the fact that there is a slightly higher incidence of rashes in those living nearest the biggest trash sites indicates a need for further studies to prove or disprove the idea that trash sites of a certain size or location are health hazards.
In summary, the findings and conclusions of the Trash-Site Safety Council are based mainly on speculation9 and a small amount of indicative data. The disclosure of the council members motives10, the study of a larger sample of the population and trash sites, and further information on other types of health problems and relative nearness of the homes and people to the trash sites would give a much better argument either for or against restrictions on the such sites.
参考译文
［题目］
垃圾场安全委员会近期在全州范围内进行了一项调查，旨在研究垃圾场对居住在附近的居民的身体大概产生的有害影响。被调查的有五座垃圾场与300多位居民。研究表明，平均而言，居所紧挨着垃圾场这一事实与这类居所中所居住人口发生的没办法讲解的疹子之间，仅存在着一种微弱的数据关系。除此之外，虽然居住在最大的垃圾场附近的居民发疹的程度略高这一事实属实，但在其他方面，垃圾场的大小与大家的健康之间毫无关系。因此，委员会可以甚为欣慰地宣布，现在这套垃圾场体制并不会对健康构成一项重大危险。大家觉得毫无必要去限制本州内这种垃圾场的规模，也没必要去限制垃圾堆附近所建造的房子数目。
[范本正文]
在本段论述中，委员会得出结论，觉得现在的垃圾场体制并没对健康构成一种重大危险，因此，毫无必要去限制垃圾场的规模或垃圾场周围的住房数目。为了支持这一结论，委员会援引了针对五所垃圾场和300位居民所作的一项研究，据此证明在住房紧挨着垃圾场与居住在那里的人中间所发生的很难名状的疹子之间仅存微弱的关联。除此之外，委员会在得出这一结论时，全然无视如此一个事实，即居住在这种最大的垃圾场附件的人发病的机率略高。论述在逻辑思路和呈示的信息方面不乏某些重要性的弱点。
其一，垃圾场安全委员会的成员没被了解列举出来，这一点可令该研究的可信度产生巨大的差异。一个完全独立的委员会所提出的结论，会被视为比一个成员间可能存在着利害关系冲突的委员会所得出的结论可信度高。但，假如组成该委员会的成员所有兴趣的只是去揭示出垃圾场没有问题--比如象房产开发商或市政厅议员，那样，该项研究会失去某些可信度。假如对委员会成员的背景与他们所优先考虑的问题一无所知，则本段论述倍遭削弱。
其二，所作的研究据称是涵盖整个州的，但被调查的仅有五座垃圾场和300位居民。尽管平均而论，垃圾场的近距离与住所与与居住在这类房子内的人之间存在一丝微弱的联系，但因为所研究的只是该州内居住在垃圾场附近的非常小一批人口样本，故误差程度或许会相当的紧急。假如在所有垃圾场附近的人和住所当中，有大多数的居民和住所得以被研究，而不仅仅是一个非常小的百分比的话，那样，所作的调查将更具说服力。
除此之外，该研究仅援引很难名状的疹子作为与健康有关的、带有肯定统计学关系的问题。该研究没提及其他类别的健康问题存在与否。状况大概是，还存在着其他种类的、可能不是那样昭然若揭的健康问题，比如癌症，正影响着居住在这类垃圾场附近的大家。再有，该研究所涵盖的好像只不过一小段时间，或者至少该研究的时间跨度不曾得到讨论。或许，有的长远影响决非是一份只在短期内进行的研究所能涵盖得了的。这一点再度削弱了本段论述，由于可以使读者信服的信息被疏忽了。 使可信度进一步受损的是，该研究没讨论各垃圾场的相对规模，也没讨论住房和居民离垃圾场有多近。事实上，一点都没数据来允许大家作出一种适合的判断，是不是应该去限制垃圾场的规模，也没讨论住房与垃圾场之间相隔多远才算安全距离。至少，在那些居住在最挨近最大的垃圾场的人身上疹子的发生率略高这一事实表明，有必要进行更深入的研究，以证明或驳倒某种规模或某种地方的垃圾场会对健康构成风险这一想法。 概括而论，垃圾场安全委员会的研究发现和研究结论所主要依据的是揣测和数目有限的说明数据。如能揭示出委员会成员的动机，研究为数更多的人口和垃圾场样本，就其他类别的健康问题与住房和居民应与垃圾场之间维持什么样的相对距离提供更进一步的信息的话，那样，作者便能作出更为充分的论述，无论是赞成还是反对对垃圾场推行限制。
