argument 158, please correct it. THANKS

[Vinnie]

TOPIC: ARGUMENT158 - 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.
================================================================

In this argument, the arguer gives the evident that the Trash-Site Safety Council (TSSC) has recently survey a total of five sites and 300 people about the harmful of garbage sites. Because the TSSC does not find out the strong relationship between rashes and garbage sites, the arguer recommends that is unnecessary to circumscribe the number of sites and the home built near the sites. It is true that the TSSC's survey is valuable to suggest, but I disagree with the arguer's viewpoint because of the flaw of argument.

First of all, the TSSC only examine five sites and 300 people on this survey. In the statistics, the TSSC's survey has two flaws. Firstly, in a state there might have hundreds of sites, and thousands of people living near the sites. However, the TSSC does not shows us the reasons that why they choice this five sites and 300 people. We can doubt representativeness and realness about selective sample of the TSSC survey. Secondly, even if the sample that TSSC has selective is representativeness and realness, but the TSSC does not present the examiner’s method. And that can make us still question the survey of TSSC in the statistics. In sum, unless the TSSC can present more data about the examination, it is open to doubt.

What is more, in the TSSC's examination, they only examine the relationship between the rash and the site to conclude that the site is not harmful for people's health. In the medicine, we still can doubt it. At first, the TSSC does not present how many target in this survey, and not show us what the function of each target is. The target of relationship between the rash and site might be not an important target which can present the site harmful with the people health. Moreover, even if the relationship between rashes and sites is the important target and the arguer gives the evident that has a little relationship for it. But the arguer does not give us the period of the survey. In the medicine, a relationship between disease and environment always has a long period to show out. In short, the TSSC cannot simplify to use the data conclude that has not relationship between the site and the health.

Finally, even if all of the TSSC's examination and conclusion is correct. However, the arguer use it to conclude that is unnecessary to circumscribe the size of sites and the number of homes built near the sites. It is might be a strong false of the conclusion. Firstly, because in the medicine, there is a lot of dilemma between the health and garbage, what is more, all of this dilemma cannot show out in a short time. Moreover, even if not consider the dilemma of the garbage, and still built more and more homes near the sites, the resident might be not satisfied with the government, because no one wants to living with a garbage site. So even it is true that the TSSC's conclusion is correct, but we still circumscribe the size of sites and the number of homes built near the sites.

In conclusion, unless the TSSC can present more data about the survey, I cannot believe it. And for the arguer's viewpoint that not circumscribe the size of sites and the number of homes built near the sites is still open to doubt.

[Kitosdad]