[a习作temp] argument15 求拍必回 [复制链接]

ILOVEISSUE
UID：2300195

超级会员

Rank: 7 Rank: 7 Rank: 7

声望: 53
寄托币: 2732
注册时间: 2007-2-4
精华: 1
帖子: 359

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-3-18 12:27:22 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT59 - 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."

In this article, the author concludes that people at particular risk for the flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun. However, close scrutiny on the evidence provided by the author reveals that it lends little credible support to this conclusion.

In the first place, the author does not provide any evidence to prove that the data is statistically reliable. To strengthen a correlation between flu epidemics and sunspot, the sample must be sufficient. Yet, the author only provides data in six years, which is too small a number to draw any conclusion. Moreover, since these medical records are just available, then what about other records? As we all know, flu began much earlier than the existence of recording material. It is entirely possible that in most of other years also with heavy sunspot activity, there is no flu epidemic. If so, then the author's conclusion will be questionable.

What's more, even if the data statistically reliable, the author unfairly assumes that the world wide flu epidemic is attributable to the heavy sunspot. Yet, the author may neglect other alternatives to this phenomenon. Such alternatives may include the fact that on these years, the qualities of medical service is not very well. Or that the lifestyle of the people is conducive to get flu. It is possible that those people drank much and do not do any practice. If so, then the flu epidemics may have nothing to do with the heavy sunspot and is just the result of the unhealthy lifestyle. Moreover, the author fails to take into account the climate condition. Perhaps, at those years the weather is unusual lower than other years. In this sense, it is nature that people are easier to get flu. Without ruling out these or other alterative explanations, the author cannot justifiably assume that it is the sunspot activity that leads to flu epidemic.

Finally, even if the foregoing assumptions are substantiated, the author's conclusion that people at particular risk for the flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun is still hasty. In two respects, first, it is possible that the correlation between flu and sunspot is not direct. For example, perhaps significant more solar energy has caused the changing of vitamin-which is helpful for people to protect flu-in vegetable and fruit thus leading to the flu epidemic. If so, then only avoiding exposure to the sun might be useless. In addition, what if we consider some terminology in the conclusion? For example, what does "particular risk" mean? How do judge whether a person is at a particular risk? The author does not mention. Also, what does "prolonged exposure" mean? Does it mean five minutes in the sun shine? Or does it mean two hours? In short, the key terms in the recommendation are too vague to be meaningful.

In sum, this argument has several flaws as discussed above. To substantiate this argument, the author should provide sufficient evidence to establish the casual relationship between sunspot activity and flu epidemic and preclude other alternative explanations for the flu epidemics.

回应
0

使用道具举报

alex_lee
UID：2227596

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 593
注册时间: 2006-7-6
精华: 0
帖子: 1

沙发

发表于 2007-3-18 13:26:43 |只看该作者

In this article, the author concludes that people at particular risk for the flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun. However, close scrutiny on the evidence provided by the author reveals that it lends little credible support to this conclusion.

In the first place, the author does not provide any （照你后面来看，enough更合适）evidence to prove that the data is statistically reliable. To strengthen a correlation between flu epidemics and sunspot, the sample must be sufficient. Yet, the author only provides data in six years, which is too small a number to draw any conclusion. Moreover, since these medical records are just available, then what about other records (没说清楚，应该是what about other years without reliable materials recording the condition of flu and sun activity)? As we all know, flu began much earlier than the existence of recording material. It is entirely possible that in most of other years also with heavy sunspot activity, there is no flu epidemic. If so, then the author's conclusion will be questionable. ( 这点好，我以前没想到)

What's more, even if the data statistically reliable, the author unfairly assumes that the world wide flu epidemic is attributable to the heavy sunspot. Yet, the author may neglect other alternatives to this phenomenon. Such alternatives may include the fact that on （in?）these years, the qualities of medical service is not very well. Or that the lifestyle of the people is conducive to get flu (这个理由不好，还不如继续展开前一个medical service is not very well). It is possible that those people drank much and do not do any practice (要展开，what is the relation between drinking too much and flu?). If so, then the flu epidemics may have nothing to do with the heavy sunspot and is just the result of the unhealthy lifestyle. Moreover, the author fails to take into account the climate condition. Perhaps, at those years the weather (average temperature) is unusual lower than other years. In this sense, it is nature that people are easier to get flu. Without ruling out these or other alterative explanations, the author cannot justifiably assume that it is the sunspot activity that leads to flu epidemic.

Finally, even if the foregoing assumptions are substantiated, the author's conclusion that people at particular risk for the flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun is still hasty. In two respects, first, it is possible that the correlation between flu and sunspot is not direct. For example, perhaps significant more solar energy has caused the changing of vitamin-which is helpful for people to protect flu-in vegetable and fruit thus leading to the flu epidemic. If so, then only avoiding exposure to the sun might be useless (indirect 这点也不能成立，即使是indirect impacts, 那exposure to the sun 还是应该避免嘛，可以有其他理由，没有证据表明那些flu epidemic 是感染那些at particular risk of flu的人引起的，可能并不增加得感冒得机会，只是加剧感冒得symptom, 或者也可以是加剧所有人得感冒得机会。). In addition, what if we consider some terminology in the conclusion? For example, what does "particular risk" mean? How do judge whether a person is at a particular risk? The author does not mention. Also, what does "prolonged exposure" mean? Does it mean five minutes in the sun shine? Or does it mean two hours? In short, the key terms in the recommendation are too vague to be meaningful. （vague term 可以再开一段，这一点也很好）

再注意一下对例子得运用。加油加油！

使用道具举报