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.

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 logic 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.

Secondly, 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 margin 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 persuasive 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 speculation and a small amount of indicative data. The disclosure of the council members motives, 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.

(640 words)

    参考译文

    ［题目］

    垃圾场安全委员会最近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有可能产生的有害影响。被调查的有五座垃圾场以及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些居所中所居住人口发生的无法解释的疹子之间，仅存在着一种微弱的数据关系。此外，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，垃圾场的大小与人们的健康之间毫无关系。因此，委员会可以甚为欣慰地宣布，目前这套垃圾场体制并不会对健康构成一项重大危险。我们认为毫无必要去限制本州内这类垃圾场的规模，也没有必要去限制垃圾堆附近所建造的房屋数量。

    [范文正文]

    在本段论述中，委员会得出结论，认为目前的垃圾场体制并没有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量。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难以名状的疹子之间仅存微弱的关联。此外，委员会在得出这一结论时，全然无视这样一个事实，即居住在这类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?方面不乏某些关键性的弱点。 其츀，"垃圾场安全委员会"的成员没?被清楚列举出来?这一点可令该研勇的可信度产生巨?的差异。一个完?独立的委员会所?出的结论，会被裆为比一个成员间凯能存在着利害关翻冲突的委员会所ᶗ出的结论可信度�。但是，如果组?该委员会的成员所感兴趣的仅仅是冻揭示出垃圾场不?在问题--例如칡房地产开发商或?政厅议员，那么?该项研究会失去ꛐ些可信度。如果姹委员会成员的背꙯以及他们所优先䄃虑的问题一无所，则本段论述倍ၭ削弱。

    其二︌所作的研究据称支涵盖整个州的，?被调查的仅有五座垃圾场和300?居民。尽管平均섌论，垃圾场的近࿝离与住所以及与住在这些房屋内的人之间存在一丝?弱的联系，但由䲎所研究的仅是该州内居住在垃圾场附近的很小一批人?样本，故误差程度可能会相当的严?。如果在所有垃?场附近的人和住?当中，有大部分뚄居民和住所得以䦫研究，而不只是?个很小的百分比㖄话，那么，所作的调查将更具说服力。

    此外，该먔究仅援引难以名¶的疹子作为与健龷相关的、带有一定统计学关系的问骘。该研究没有提?其他类别的健康헮题存在与否。情况有可能是，还存?着其他类型的、怖许不是那么昭然若揭的健康问题，උ如癌症，正影响畀居住在这些垃圾场附近的人们。再ꘉ，该研究所涵盖?似乎只是一小段ꟶ间，或者至少该?究的时间跨度不?得到讨论。也许?有些长远影响决?是一份只在短期펅进行的研究所能꺵盖得了的。这一犹再度削弱了本段쮺述，因为可以使䧻者信服的信息被疏忽了。

    使可䷡度进一步受损的꘯，该研究没有讨஺各垃圾场的相对䣄模，也没讨论住愿和居民离垃圾场?底有多近。实际䴊，一点都没有数ꉮ来允许人们作出ഀ种恰当的判断，是否应该去限制垃圾场的规模，也没讨论住房与垃圾场?间相隔多远才算?全距离。至少，?那些居住在最靠컑最大的垃圾场的䲺身上疹子的发生略高这一事实表?，有必要进行更入的研究，以证✎或驳倒某种规模?某种位置的垃圾场会对健康构成危ᦳ这一想法。

    ?括而论，垃圾场�全委员会的研究凑现和研究结论所฻要依据的是揣测垌数量有限的说明晰据。如能揭示出委员会成员的动机︌研究为数更多的ྺ口和垃圾场样本브就其他类别的健问题以及住房和居民应与垃圾场之?保持怎样的相对违离提供更进一步的信息的话，那么︌作者便能作出更ഺ充分的论述，无쪺是赞成还是反对᧹垃圾场实施限制