Argument59 黑子与感冒 欢迎狂拍 有拍必回 谢谢

rodgoodUID: 2619326

根据二楼家家斑竹的仔细修改，我对小作又进行了改进，贴在了5楼，敬请板油拍之，谢谢

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 writer suggests that people who are likely to suffer flu had better not be exposed to the Sun for a long time. To bolster his version, the writer cites records of the six worst worldwide flu epidemics to set up a relationship between the sick and the years with heavy sunspot activity. After scrutiny on the article, I find the evidence unconvincing and the reasoning illogical.

First of all, what I suspect is the completeness of the record the writer cites. I notice that four out of six times of worst worldwide flu occurred in the 20th century, only twice before, which is probably unreasonable. Did serious flu happen worldwide only twice in the 18th and 19th century, when the technology of medical care was far more laggard than that in the 20th century? If the lost records, maybe due to the long time, are just in the years without heavy sunspot activity, how can such a relation of flu epidemics and sunspot be established?

Secondly, even though the records are out of question, the cause-and-effect relationship is uncertain. Perhaps it is merely a coincidence. Scientists inform us that the period of sunspot activity is about 11 years, indicating that there is a heavy one every 11 years. During the latest 300 years, our planet has weathered at lease 20 times of such heavy activity, but only 6 times of severe flu took place. Therefore, the cause-and-effect relationship is unsound, and the conclusion that the recorded flu is the result of the heavy sunspot activity is out of support.

Admittedly, there is no doubt that the Earth receives more energy from the star when sunspot activity is rigorous, but no evidence implies that more warmer the earth is, more likely a flu will break out. The writer overlooks one fact that even on the Earth, areas with different latitude catch different amount of sunshine. However, no reliable research or investigation could demonstrate that people living near the equator are more likely to catch cold than those living in higher latitude. Consequently, the writer obtains the summing-up too harshly.

In sum, the writer cannot make an advice to people only according to the coincident records. We will believe in the statement unless more statistics data of history and medical information on the cause of global flu epidemics are presented.

家家☆yoonjaeUID: 2646910

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 writer suggests that people who are likely to suffer flu had better not be exposed to the Sun for a long time. To bolster his version, the writer (虽然这么用没有任何语法上的错误，但是在行文的过程中一定要牢记一点，尽可能地使用同义替换来避免重复，这样能为文章争取不少印象分，第一句中刚刚用过the writer，这里就可以用the arguer或者the author之类的) cites records of the six worst worldwide flu epidemics to set up a relationship between the sick and the years with heavy sunspot activity. After scrutiny on the article, I (在AW写作中，最好尽量避免I、we之类的主语，强调客观与逻辑即可，上述词汇容易让人产生相对主观的印象，这里完全可以用it is easy to代替) find the evidence unconvincing and the reasoning illogical.【开头的条理还是比较清晰的，也做到了将原文的逻辑链主体概括出来，做得不错。】

First of all, what I suspect is the completeness of the record the writer cites. (与第一段中指出的是同样的问题) I notice that four out of six times of the worst worldwide flu occurred in the 20th century, only twice before, which is probably unreasonable. Did such serious flu happen worldwide only twice in the 18th and 19th century, when the technology of medical care was far more laggard than that in the 20th century? (这里犯了argument中的一个大忌，行文的感觉有“断”，反问的确能够增强论述的语气，但是一定要注意论述的完整性，千万不可以想当然，因为rater不会对你的语义进行任何推断，无论多么reasonable，一定要表述完整，不要让rater读完句子之后，问“So what?”， 在这里，显然应该补上一句来回答你的反问，例如It’s definitely incredible.) If the lost records, maybe due to the long time, are just in the years without heavy sunspot activity, how can such a relation of flu epidemics and sunspot being established? (也是一样的道理，基于前面的论述，由于数据出现范围的不合理性，我们有理由怀疑records的完整性，需要阐述清楚) 【第二段来说，其实切入点已经找到了，关键是如何把你的驳斥部分圈起来，能够实现有理有力的论证，句子或者说语言的驾驭能力其实不错，但是问题在于结构不严密，逻辑不严谨，而这个能力恰恰是AW写作的核心考察点，有待加强。】
Secondly, even though the records are out of question,(这里用out of question显然也不够严密，在前一段的论述中，所强调的问题是completeness，用out of question有一概而论的弊端) the cause-and-effect relationship is uncertain. Perhaps it is merely a coincidence. (这一句该放在段落的后面，展开论述之后会显得条理更清晰) Scientists inform us (个人感觉用Corresponding scientific research shows会更合适一些，尽量避免用us之类的词) that the period of sunspot activity is about 11 years, indicating that there is a heavy one every 11 years. That’s means, during the latest 300 years, our planet has weathered at least 20 times of such heavy activity, but only 6 times of severe flu took place. (注意句子之间的衔接，用好连接词，并且要注意多说半句，千万不要点到即止或者浅尝辄止。) Therefore, the cause-and-effect relationship is unsound, and the conclusion that the recorded flu is the result of the heavy sunspot activity is out of support.

Admittedly, (这里用admittedly不合适，由你的句意来看这不属于连接词，可以用moreover之类与上文衔接) there is no doubt that the Earth receives more energy from the star when sunspot activity is rigorous, but no evidence implies that more warmer the earth is, more likely a flu will break out. (这里的意思显然与上一段的论述overlap，从你的文章结构来看，论证应该是这样展开的，1.引用的证据是否完整，2.即使数据是完整的，也不能说明heavy sunspot activity与worldwide flu epidemics之间的关联性，3.即使heavy sunspot activity确实影响worldwide flu epidemic，也不表明People at particular risk for the flu should therefore avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun是正确的。那么在这论述的第三部分就要针对People at particular risk for the flu should therefore avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun这部分展开，那么你的段首主题句显然与此有出入。)The writer overlooks one fact that even on the Earth, areas with different latitude catch different amount of sunshine. However, (这个however看得我很混乱，完全没有转折的意思，千万不要用chiglish去代入) no reliable research or investigation could demonstrate that people living near the equator are more likely to catch cold than those living in higher latitude. Consequently,(之前的论述逻辑链还不到consequently的环节，断层了，需要完整你的推理过程) the writer obtains the summing-up too harshly.【论证过于单薄了，甚至不足以支撑总分总的结构】

In sum, the writer cannot make an advice to people only according to the coincident records. We will believe in the statement unless more statistics data of history and medical information on the cause of global flu epidemics are presented. 【个人习惯，结尾不改】

文中红色部分表示有问题，蓝色单词表示用词得当，蓝色批注为段落整体评价，橘色的部分是我添加或修改的，绿色批注为个人建议。

rodgoodUID: 2619326

斑竹修改得真仔细啊，谢谢~~一定好好揣摩，与一反三
我也觉得自己倒数第二段的论证有些单薄，虽然自己想到从time切入，但是没有进行下去，逻辑也比较跳跃，即斑竹说的“断层了”。当时怎么想的呢？
再次谢谢斑竹，我修改好了再贴上来！

emteddybearUID: 2699606

赞一下你的语言，很不错哦，我要好好学习，然后有家家版主给你改了，我就不班门弄斧了哈，不过好像有个知识性的问题哈

there is no doubt that the Earth receives more energy from the star when sunspot activity is rigorous, but no evidence implies that more warmer the earth is, more likely a flu will break out.

这句话貌似是错的，理由如下：

太阳黑子（sunspot）是在太阳的光球层上发生的一种太阳活动，是太阳活动中最基本、最明显的。一般认为，太阳黑子实际上是太阳表面一种炽热气体的巨大漩涡，温度大约为4500摄氏度。因为比太阳的光球层表面温度要低1000到2000摄氏度，所以看上去像一些深暗色的斑点。太阳黑子很少单独活动，常是成群出现。黑子的活动周期为11.2年，活跃时会对地球的磁场产生影响，主要是使地球南北极和赤道的大气环流作经向流动，从而造成恶劣天气，使气候转冷。严重时会对各类电子产品和电器造成损害。

理由来源：http://baike.baidu.com/view/953.htm?fr=ala0_1_1

rodgoodUID: 2619326

根据家家斑竹的修改，我对小作作了如下修改，红色为修改之处。请板油继续拍之，谢谢~~~~~

In this article, the writer suggests that people who are likely to suffer flu had better not be exposed to the Sun for a long time. To bolster his version, the arguer cites records of the six worst worldwide flu epidemics to set up a relationship between the sick and the years with heavy sunspot activity. After scrutiny on the article, it is easy to find the evidence unconvincing and the reasoning illogical.

First of all, what should be suspected is the completeness of the record the author cites. It is noticed that four out of six times of the worst worldwide flu occurred in the 20th century, only twice before, which is probably unreasonable. Did such serious flu happen worldwide only twice in the 18th and 19th century, when the technology of medical care was far more laggard than that in the 20th century? It is definitely incredible. / It is impossible. If the lost records, maybe due to the long time, are just in the years without heavy sunspot activity, how can such a relation of flu epidemics and sunspot being established? Obviously it cannot. Therefore, only when the integrated record is provided can the reasoning be developed.

Secondly, even though the records are sure, the cause-and-effect relationship is uncertain. Corresponding scientific research shows that the period of sunspot activity is about 11 years, indicating that there is a heavy one every 11 years. That’s means, during the latest 300 years, our planet has weathered at least 20 times of such heavy activity, but only 6 times of severe flu took place. Perhaps occurrences of the worse flu and severe sunspot activity are merely a coincidence, but there is no more evidence offered demonstrating their correlations. Therefore, the cause-and-effect relationship is unsound, and the conclusion that the recorded flu is the result of the heavy sunspot activity is out of support.

Moreover, there is no doubt that the Earth receives more energy from the star when sunspot activity is rigorous, but no evidence implies that people obtaining more sunshine are likely to catch cold.
The arguer overlooks one fact that even on the Earth, areas with different latitude catch different amount of sunshine. That is to say, people living near the equator will receive more energy than those living in higher latitude.
However, no reliable research or investigation could demonstrate that the former catch cold more often than the latter. So, it is thus clearly that long exposure to the Sun probably has nothing to do with catching cold. Consequently, the writer obtains the summing-up too harshly.

In sum, the advice cannot be made to people only according to the coincident records. The statement would be more persuasive unless more statistics data of history and medical information on the cause of global flu epidemics are presented.