該論點的缺陷之一是只基於一項研究報告就確定吃大量的魚可以預防感冒。作者

該論點的缺陷之一是只基於一項研究報告就確定吃大量的魚可以預防感冒。作者未能建立魚類消費與感冒發生率減少之間的因果關係。由於缺乏此類證據，東梅里亞的人們總體上完全有可能本來就不常感冒。當然，也有可能是因為生活方式、醫療保健或遺傳等其他因素而減少感冒發生率。無論如何，需要更多令人信服的證據證明這兩起事件之間的直接聯繫，而不是巧合的相關性。

結果 (英文) 1:

One of the flaws in this argument is the determination that eating lots of fish can prevent colds based on just one study. The authors were unable to establish a causal link between fish consumption and reduced incidence of colds. In the absence of such evidence, it is entirely possible that people in East Meria generally did not catch colds very often. Of course, it's also possible that other factors such as lifestyle, medical care, or genetics may reduce the incidence of colds. In any case, more convincing evidence is needed to prove a direct link between the two events rather than a coincidental correlation.

結果 (英文) 2:

One of the flaws of this argument is that it is determined based solely on a research report that consuming a large amount of fish can prevent colds. The author failed to establish a causal relationship between fish consumption and a decrease in the incidence of colds. Due to the lack of such evidence, it is entirely possible that people in East Meria generally do not catch colds frequently. Of course, it is also possible that the incidence of colds may be reduced due to other factors such as lifestyle, healthcare, or genetics. Anyway, more convincing evidence is needed to prove the direct connection between these two events, rather than a coincidental correlation.

結果 (英文) 3:

One of the shortcomings of this argument is that eating a lot of fish can prevent colds based on only one research report. The author failed to establish the causal relationship between fish consumption and the reduction of cold incidence. Due to the lack of such evidence, it is entirely possible that people in East Meria may not catch colds very often in the first place. Of course, it is also possible that other factors such as lifestyle, medical care or heredity reduce the incidence of colds. In any case, more convincing evidence is needed to prove the direct connection between the two events, rather than the coincidence correlation.