59 The following appeared in an article in the health section of a newspaper.
"According to the available medical records, the six worst worldwide flu epidemics during the past 300 years occurred in 1729, 1830, 1918, 1957, 1968, and 1977. These were all years with heavy sunspot activity—that is, years when the Earth received significantly more solar energy than in normal years. People at particular risk for the flu should therefore avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun."
攻击：1。avaiable records，数据不具有代表性。
2。流感和太阳黑子运动之间密切不大
3 建议比较草率（不知道这个可不可以攻击）
以上。第一次计时写， 不过还是超了十分钟。。哎。。。
The newspaper informs people of avoiding flu by less exposure to the sun, draws the conclusion based on the medical records. The writer makes the final suggestion by relating the prevalent of flu with the unusual solar energy, which I consider there are several logical flaws in it.
The conclusion that the flu epidemics are because of heavy sunspot activity is mainly based on the available medical records. The writer retrospect past 300 years as the statistic, and only 6 years are recorded. This is not sufficient enough to represent the whole flu epidemics history of human beings. The writer fails to provide more facts to have a general look over the history, which makes the available records less persuasive.
Moreover, by the less potent records, the news wrongly substantiate the heavy sunspot activity as the fatal reason for the flu epidemics. There's no compelling facts, or scientific evident and information to explain the more solar energy the more flu suffers. It's entirely possible these six years happened to have more solar energy, which is a pure geographical phenomenon. Many other factors contributed to the spread of flu. Perhaps, these years weather conditions were changeable and the medical techniques were poor. Or, perhaps, during these years, the society were unstable, people keep roaming around all the time, which easily cause the prevail of flu. Many other reasons might explain the flu epidemics.
Even if the supposition more solar energy would give rise to the expansion of flu, the writer make such conclusion is too hasty. Some particular words are not defined which make it unjustifiable for readers. As we all know, exposed to sun light has many positive functions, such as taking a deep breath, disinfecting germs, is very healthy especially in cold winter. Nevertheless, in the suggest to avoid prolonging exposure alone. The prolong time should be different to individuals, and according to seasons. These unmentioned details both result the unconvincing news.
Therefore, what has been cited in the news is less evident. To convince readers, the news had better cite more statistics to look back the history of flu, and invite some scientists to further explain whether there’s any relations between the epidemics and the excessive solar energy. Finally, the writer should offer a considerate suggestion.作者: exp03 时间: 2006-2-3 16:36:21
The newspaper informs people of avoiding flu by less exposure to the sun, draws the conclusion based on the medical records. The writer makes the final suggestion by relating the prevalent of flu with the unusual solar energy, which I consider there are several logical flaws in it. which 用在这里是否不太好 两句之间是因果关系而非主从关系吧
开头段还是很不错，不落俗套、简练且说清了主要问题，值得学习。
The conclusion that the flu epidemics are because of heavy sunspot activity觉得有点中国英语的感觉“流行感冒是因为强烈的太阳黑子活动”改为the reason of the flu epidemics is heavy sunspot activity是不是会好点 is mainly based on the available medical records. The writer retrospect动词用得不错 past 300 years as the statistic查牛津和韦伯都没有retrospect和as连用的用法不知道这样用对不对, and转折关系用but似乎更好 only 6 years are recorded. This is not sufficient enough to represent the whole flu epidemics history of human beings. The writer fails to provide more enough似乎会好一点，more的指代有点模糊 facts to have a general look 语法上好像有点不对，又有把汉语直译成英语的感觉have a look at/to take a general looking我也不是很拿得准over the history, which makes the available records less persuasive这个定从的先行词是哪一个呢，对它所要修饰的东西不是很清楚.
最后两句好像意思重复，觉得可以举一些实际数据来避免这种重复。
Moreover, by the less potent records, the news wrongly substantiate the heavy sunspot activity as the fatal reason for the flu epidemics. There's no compelling facts, or scientific evident and information to explain the more solar energy with the more flu suffers. It's entirely possible these six years happened to have more solar energy, which is a pure geographical phenomenon, meanwhile many other factors contributed to the spread of flu. Perhaps, in these years weather conditions were changeable and the medical techniques were poor. Or, perhaps, during these years, the society were was unstable, so that people keep roaming用这个词似乎不太合适roam作动词使主要是游逛于集市的意思 around all the time, which easily cause the prevailing of flu. What is more, many other reasons might explain the flu epidemics.
Even if the supposition more solar energy would give rise to the expansion of flu句子结构不对even if we suppose that…, the writer make such a conclusion is too hasty. Some particular words information比较好吧 are not defined which感觉因果关系比主从关系更强一些 make it unjustifiable for readers. As we all know, exposed to sun light has many positive functions, such as taking a deep breath, disinfecting germs, is同位语成分不能有动词，去掉is,或者改为并列成分加一个名词 very healthy especially in cold winter. Nevertheless, in the suggest to avoid prolonging exposure alone句子结构不对主谓宾找不到. The prolong动词不能直接修饰名词 time should be different to individuals, and according动词并列用原型 to seasons. These unmentioned details both result in the unconvincing news.
Therefore, what has been cited in the news is less evident形容词不能直接修饰形容词. To convince readers, the news had时态不对 better cite一句之中不能同时出现两个动词，改为citing more statistics to look back the history of flu, and invite inviting some scientists to further explain是不是想表达to explain the phenomena whether there’s any relations感觉这种表达不是很好whether or not strong relationship is occurring between the epidemics and the excessive solar energy. Finally, the writer should offer a considerate suggestion.
总的来说，动词用得很好，对句子结构似乎掌握得不够，句子之间的承接似乎也做得不是很好，语法有待加强，几处有Chinese English感觉。改得不对的地方请多包涵。作者: yogurt4 时间: 2006-2-3 20:34:16