Issue

　　The following appeared in the editorial section of a health and fitness magazine.

　　In a study of the effects of exercise on longevity, medical researchers tracked 500 middle-aged men over a 20-year period. The subjects represented a variety of occupations in several different parts of the country and responded to an annual survey in which they were asked: How often and how strenuously do you exercise? Of those who responded, the men who reported that they engaged in vigorous outdoor exercise nearly every day lived longer than the men who reported that they exercised mildly only once or twice a week. Given the clear link that this study establishes between longevity and exercise, doctors should not recommend moderate exercise to their patients but should instead encourage vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis.

　　It is natural to assume that exercise would have a positive effect on the length of life for middle-aged men given all of the medical literature that has been published in the past showing a positive correlation between exercise and longevity. In this particular argument, the writer puts forth a study purporting to track five hundred middle-aged men with different occupations in different parts of the country. The survey was apparently conducted on the basis of an annual survey asking how often and how strenuously these men exercised. The writer not only concludes that there is a clear link between longevity and exercise, but that doctors should not recommend moderate exercise, rather vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis to all their patients. This writers argument fails to convince in a number of areas due to several lapses in logical thinking.

　　The first and most glaring error in logic lies in the fact that the results of only two types of exercising men are reported: those that exercise strenuously outdoors almost every day and those that only had mild exercise once or twice per week. There are no other results mentioned from the survey, such as the results of men who exercise vigorously indoors every day, or those that exercise moderately either indoors or outdoors three or four times per week. Additionally, it is likely that those men that are exercising outdoors vigorously and almost every day are already in better health than those men that only exercise mildly once or twice per week. Unhealthy men, either due to obesity, smoking or other health-related problems, would naturally be expected to exercise less and die sooner than those apparently healthy men who are physically able to exercise strenuously every day.

　　Furthermore, the writer indicates that the survey looked at men in different parts of the country with a variety of occupations. It would follow that men that can exercise vigorously outdoors almost every day must live in more favorable climates for such exercise. Milder weather that permits outdoor exercise would likely be healthier for any men rather than the harsher climates that may be present in other parts of the country. In addition, some occupations such as a policeman, firefighter or steelworker are naturally more dangerous than others, leading to a possibly reduced life span. The writer fails to take into account any possible disparity in longevity that may be caused by climatic differences where the men lived or due to their occupations, thus weakening the argument and its conclusion.

　　Finally, the argument suffers from a critical flaw in its conclusion when the writer states that doctors should not recommend moderate exercise for their patients, instead stating that they should only encourage vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis. This conclusion is supported by absolutely no evidence in the argument - indeed moderate exercise is not even mentioned until the end of the editorial. Additionally, the argument fails to take into account that the study only addresses men, not women or children that are also doctors patients. Furthermore, for some men, women or children, outdoor vigorous exercise on a daily basis might actually be detrimental to their health, such as those at risk for a heart attack or living in harsh climates.

　　In summary, the writer fails to show that doctors should recommend vigorous daily outdoor exercise rather than moderate exercise whether it is for men, women or children. To strengthen the argument, evidence should be presented that directly links strenuous outdoor exercise on a daily basis for men as well as all doctors patients before any such recommendation should be adopted. This weak argument might actually cause more damage to patients health than it would prevent.

　下述文字刊登于某健康與健美雜志的社論欄：在一項有關運動對長壽的影響的研究中，醫療研究人員在為期20年的時間中跟蹤調查了500名中年男性。被調查對象代表著該國若干個不同地區的形形色色的職業，他們對每年度調查中的二個問題你運動的頻繁程度如何?運動的力度如何?作出回答。在所有作出回答的人中間，那些匯報說幾乎每天都從事劇烈戶外運動的男性，其壽命要高于那些匯報說每周只從事一次或二次輕微運動的男性。鑒于本項研究在長壽與運動之間所確立的明顯關系，大夫們不應向其病人建議適度的運動，而應該鼓勵病人每天從事劇烈的戶外活動。

　　鑒于過去所出版的醫學文獻均表明，在運動和長壽之間存在著一種積極的關系，人們自然會認為運動會對中年男性的壽命產生一種極積的影響。在這段特定的論述中，作者引用一份研究，聲稱該研究對500名本國不同地區從事不同職業的男性進行了跟蹤調查。這份研究顯然每年進行一次問卷調查，詢問這些男性從事運動的頻繁程度以及力度如何。該作者不僅得出結論，認為長壽和運動之間存在著明顯的聯系，而且也認為大夫不應該向病人推薦適度的運動，而應該鼓勵所有的病人每天都應進行劇烈的戶外運動。

　　鑒于其邏輯思維中的若干差錯，該作者的論述在諸多方面無法令人信服。 邏輯推理中第一個也是最彰著的謬誤在于這樣一個事實，即研究僅報告了從事運動的二類男性的結果，第一類為幾乎每天都要去戶外做劇烈運動的男性，第二類為一星期只進行一至二次適度運動的男性。該調查中的其他結果均未提及，諸如每天在室內進行劇烈運動的男性的結果，或者那些每周三至四次在室內或在室外進行運動的男性的結果。此外，那些在室外作劇烈運動且幾乎每天都進行運動的男性，可能比那些僅每周作一至二次適度運動的人早就處在更佳的身體狀況之中。身體不夠健康的男性，或因為肥胖，或因為抽煙，或因為其他與健康相關的問題，自然不被期望去作那么多的運動，否則，與那些顯然是身體健康的、擁有每天進行劇烈運動體能的男性相比，他們可能會死得更早。 另一方面，該作者表示，此項調查所研究的男性分布在該國不同的地區，從事著不盡相同的職業。我們自然會得出這樣的結論，即那些能夠在戶外幾乎每天都從事劇烈運動的男性，他們必定生活在較適宜于這類運動的氣候之中。

　　允許戶外運動的較為溫和的氣候無疑要比存在于該國其他地區較為惡劣的氣候對任何人的身體更為有利。除此之外，諸如警察、消防員以及鋼鐵工人這些職業，自然要比其他類別的職業更加危險，從而導致一個人的壽命可能縮短。該作者沒能考慮到任何有可能由人們所在地區的氣候差異或其職業差異所致的壽命長短方面的差別，從而削弱了其論據及其結論。 最后，當作者作出這樣的陳述，即大夫不應該向其病人建議適度的運動，而只應該鼓勵每日進行戶外劇烈的運動時，其論述的結論中便產生了一個關鍵性的缺陷。所得出的結論在論述中絕對找不到任何可資佐證的依據甚至，只是直到社論結束之處才提及適度的運動。此外，此項論述沒能注意到所作的研究僅涉及男性，而非涉及同樣也作為大夫病人的女性和兒童。再者，對于某些男性、女性、及兒童而言，每天的戶外劇烈運動實際上反而會危害他們的健康，尤其是對于那些有心臟病危險或生活在惡劣氣候中的人們來說。

　　歸納而言，本社論作者沒能證明大夫們為什么就應該推薦劇烈的每日戶外運動，而不是適度的運動，無論病人是男性、女性、還是孩子。若需要強化其論點，作者應擺出證據，將男性每日劇烈的戶外運動和所有大夫的病人的運動直接聯系起來，然后才采納任何這樣的建議。這一薄弱的論據實際上有可能引起的對病人健康的傷害，會遠超過它所可能防范的傷害。

　　Issue

　　The following appeared in the editorial section of a health and fitness magazine.

　　In a study of the effects of exercise on longevity, medical researchers tracked 500 middle-aged men over a 20-year period. The subjects represented a variety of occupations in several different parts of the country and responded to an annual survey in which they were asked: How often and how strenuously do you exercise? Of those who responded, the men who reported that they engaged in vigorous outdoor exercise nearly every day lived longer than the men who reported that they exercised mildly only once or twice a week. Given the clear link that this study establishes between longevity and exercise, doctors should not recommend moderate exercise to their patients but should instead encourage vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis.

　　It is natural to assume that exercise would have a positive effect on the length of life for middle-aged men given all of the medical literature that has been published in the past showing a positive correlation between exercise and longevity. In this particular argument, the writer puts forth a study purporting to track five hundred middle-aged men with different occupations in different parts of the country. The survey was apparently conducted on the basis of an annual survey asking how often and how strenuously these men exercised. The writer not only concludes that there is a clear link between longevity and exercise, but that doctors should not recommend moderate exercise, rather vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis to all their patients. This writers argument fails to convince in a number of areas due to several lapses in logical thinking.

　　The first and most glaring error in logic lies in the fact that the results of only two types of exercising men are reported: those that exercise strenuously outdoors almost every day and those that only had mild exercise once or twice per week. There are no other results mentioned from the survey, such as the results of men who exercise vigorously indoors every day, or those that exercise moderately either indoors or outdoors three or four times per week. Additionally, it is likely that those men that are exercising outdoors vigorously and almost every day are already in better health than those men that only exercise mildly once or twice per week. Unhealthy men, either due to obesity, smoking or other health-related problems, would naturally be expected to exercise less and die sooner than those apparently healthy men who are physically able to exercise strenuously every day.

　　Furthermore, the writer indicates that the survey looked at men in different parts of the country with a variety of occupations. It would follow that men that can exercise vigorously outdoors almost every day must live in more favorable climates for such exercise. Milder weather that permits outdoor exercise would likely be healthier for any men rather than the harsher climates that may be present in other parts of the country. In addition, some occupations such as a policeman, firefighter or steelworker are naturally more dangerous than others, leading to a possibly reduced life span. The writer fails to take into account any possible disparity in longevity that may be caused by climatic differences where the men lived or due to their occupations, thus weakening the argument and its conclusion.

　　Finally, the argument suffers from a critical flaw in its conclusion when the writer states that doctors should not recommend moderate exercise for their patients, instead stating that they should only encourage vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis. This conclusion is supported by absolutely no evidence in the argument - indeed moderate exercise is not even mentioned until the end of the editorial. Additionally, the argument fails to take into account that the study only addresses men, not women or children that are also doctors patients. Furthermore, for some men, women or children, outdoor vigorous exercise on a daily basis might actually be detrimental to their health, such as those at risk for a heart attack or living in harsh climates.

　　In summary, the writer fails to show that doctors should recommend vigorous daily outdoor exercise rather than moderate exercise whether it is for men, women or children. To strengthen the argument, evidence should be presented that directly links strenuous outdoor exercise on a daily basis for men as well as all doctors patients before any such recommendation should be adopted. This weak argument might actually cause more damage to patients health than it would prevent.

　下述文字刊登于某健康與健美雜志的社論欄：在一項有關運動對長壽的影響的研究中，醫療研究人員在為期20年的時間中跟蹤調查了500名中年男性。被調查對象代表著該國若干個不同地區的形形色色的職業，他們對每年度調查中的二個問題你運動的頻繁程度如何?運動的力度如何?作出回答。在所有作出回答的人中間，那些匯報說幾乎每天都從事劇烈戶外運動的男性，其壽命要高于那些匯報說每周只從事一次或二次輕微運動的男性。鑒于本項研究在長壽與運動之間所確立的明顯關系，大夫們不應向其病人建議適度的運動，而應該鼓勵病人每天從事劇烈的戶外活動。

　　鑒于過去所出版的醫學文獻均表明，在運動和長壽之間存在著一種積極的關系，人們自然會認為運動會對中年男性的壽命產生一種極積的影響。在這段特定的論述中，作者引用一份研究，聲稱該研究對500名本國不同地區從事不同職業的男性進行了跟蹤調查。這份研究顯然每年進行一次問卷調查，詢問這些男性從事運動的頻繁程度以及力度如何。該作者不僅得出結論，認為長壽和運動之間存在著明顯的聯系，而且也認為大夫不應該向病人推薦適度的運動，而應該鼓勵所有的病人每天都應進行劇烈的戶外運動。

　　鑒于其邏輯思維中的若干差錯，該作者的論述在諸多方面無法令人信服。 邏輯推理中第一個也是最彰著的謬誤在于這樣一個事實，即研究僅報告了從事運動的二類男性的結果，第一類為幾乎每天都要去戶外做劇烈運動的男性，第二類為一星期只進行一至二次適度運動的男性。該調查中的其他結果均未提及，諸如每天在室內進行劇烈運動的男性的結果，或者那些每周三至四次在室內或在室外進行運動的男性的結果。此外，那些在室外作劇烈運動且幾乎每天都進行運動的男性，可能比那些僅每周作一至二次適度運動的人早就處在更佳的身體狀況之中。身體不夠健康的男性，或因為肥胖，或因為抽煙，或因為其他與健康相關的問題，自然不被期望去作那么多的運動，否則，與那些顯然是身體健康的、擁有每天進行劇烈運動體能的男性相比，他們可能會死得更早。 另一方面，該作者表示，此項調查所研究的男性分布在該國不同的地區，從事著不盡相同的職業。我們自然會得出這樣的結論，即那些能夠在戶外幾乎每天都從事劇烈運動的男性，他們必定生活在較適宜于這類運動的氣候之中。

　　允許戶外運動的較為溫和的氣候無疑要比存在于該國其他地區較為惡劣的氣候對任何人的身體更為有利。除此之外，諸如警察、消防員以及鋼鐵工人這些職業，自然要比其他類別的職業更加危險，從而導致一個人的壽命可能縮短。該作者沒能考慮到任何有可能由人們所在地區的氣候差異或其職業差異所致的壽命長短方面的差別，從而削弱了其論據及其結論。 最后，當作者作出這樣的陳述，即大夫不應該向其病人建議適度的運動，而只應該鼓勵每日進行戶外劇烈的運動時，其論述的結論中便產生了一個關鍵性的缺陷。所得出的結論在論述中絕對找不到任何可資佐證的依據甚至，只是直到社論結束之處才提及適度的運動。此外，此項論述沒能注意到所作的研究僅涉及男性，而非涉及同樣也作為大夫病人的女性和兒童。再者，對于某些男性、女性、及兒童而言，每天的戶外劇烈運動實際上反而會危害他們的健康，尤其是對于那些有心臟病危險或生活在惡劣氣候中的人們來說。

　　歸納而言，本社論作者沒能證明大夫們為什么就應該推薦劇烈的每日戶外運動，而不是適度的運動，無論病人是男性、女性、還是孩子。若需要強化其論點，作者應擺出證據，將男性每日劇烈的戶外運動和所有大夫的病人的運動直接聯系起來，然后才采納任何這樣的建議。這一薄弱的論據實際上有可能引起的對病人健康的傷害，會遠超過它所可能防范的傷害。