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 writer's 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.
参考译文
[题目]
下述文字刊登于某健康与健美杂志的社论栏：
"在一项有关运动对长寿的影响的研究中，医疗研究人员在为期20年的时间中跟踪调查了500名中年男性。被调查对象代表着该国若干个不同地区的形形色色的职业，他们对每年度调查中的二个问题--你运动的频繁程度如何?运动的力度如何?--作出回答。在所有作出回答的人中间，那些汇报说几乎每天都从事剧烈户外运动的男性，其寿命要高于那些汇报说每周只从事一次或二次轻微运动的男性。鉴于本项研究在长寿与运动之间所确立的明显关系，大夫们不应向其病人建议适度的运动，而应该鼓励病人每天从事剧烈的户外活动。"
[范文正文]
鉴于过去所出版的医学文献均表明，在运动和长寿之间存在着一种积极的关系，人们自然会认为运动会对中年男性的寿命产生一种极积的影响。在这段特定的论述中，作者引用一份研究，声称该研究对500名本国不同地区从事不同职业的男性进行了跟踪调查。这份研究显然每年进行一次问卷调查，询问这些男性从事运动的频繁程度以及力度如何。该作者不仅得出结论，认为长寿和运动之间存在着明显的联系，而且也认为大夫不应该向病人推荐适度的运动，而应该鼓励所有的病人每天都应进行剧烈的户外运动。鉴于其逻辑思维中的若干差错，该作者的论述在诸多方面无法令人信服。
逻辑推理中第一个也是最彰著的谬误在于这样一个事实，即研究仅报告了从事运动的二类男性的结果，第一类为几乎每天都要去户外做剧烈运动的男性，第二类为一星期只进行一至二次适度运动的男性。该调查中的其他结果均未提及，诸如每天在室内进行剧烈运动的男性的结果，或者那些每周三至四次在室内或在室外进行运动的男性的结果。此外，那些在室外作剧烈运动且几乎每天都进行运动的男性，可能比那些仅每周作一至二次适度运动的人早就处在更佳的身体状况之中。身体不够健康的男性，或因为肥胖，或因为抽烟，或因为其他与健康相关的问题，自然不被期望去作那么多的运动，否则，与那些显然是身体健康的、拥有每天进行剧烈运动体能的男性相比，他们可能会死得更早。
另一方面，该作者表示，此项调查所研究的男性分布在该国不同的地区，从事着不尽相同的职业。我们自然会得出这样的结论，即那些能够在户外几乎每天都从事剧烈运动的男性，他们必定生活在较适宜于这类运动的气候之中。允许户外运动的较为温和的气候无疑要比存在于该国其他地区较为恶劣的气候对任何人的身体更为有利。除此之外，诸如警察、消防员以及钢铁工人这些职业，自然要比其他类别的职业更加危险，从而导致一个人的寿命可能缩短。该作者没能考虑到任何有可能由人们所在地区的气候差异或其职业差异所致的寿命长短方面的差别，从而削弱了其论据及其结论。
最后，当作者作出这样的陈述，即大夫不应该向其病人建议适度的运动，而只应该鼓励每日进行户外剧烈的运动时，其论述的结论中便产生了一个关键性的缺陷。所得出的结论在论述中绝对找不到任何可资佐证的依据--甚至，只是直到社论结束之处才提及适度的运动。此外，此项论述没能注意到所作的研究仅涉及男性，而非涉及同样也作为大夫病人的女性和儿童。再者，对于某些男性、女性、及儿童而言，每天的户外剧烈运动实际上反而会危害他们的健康，尤其是对于那些有心脏病危险或生活在恶劣气候中的人们来说。
归纳而言，本社论作者没能证明大夫们为什么就应该推荐剧烈的每日户外运动，而不是适度的运动，无论病人是男性、女性、还是孩子。若需要强化其论点，作者应摆出证据，将男性每日剧烈的户外运动和所有大夫的病人的运动直接联系起来，然后才采纳任何这样的建议。这一薄弱的论据实际上有可能引起的对病人健康的伤害，会远超过它所可能防范的伤害。