【Big Fish】3月6日 Argument81-By Rokre2tt

rokre2ttUID: 2714355

In this argument, based on a new study, the author proposes that parents shouldn’t limit the children exposure to irritants or bacteria to avoid allergies. However, I can't share the conclusion with him for there are obvious logical flaws in his analysis.

First of all, whether these two views are all correct doesn't mention in the argument. Sometimes there is a phenomenon that we can get no less than one explanation to a disease. The author doesn’t give sufficient evidences to support these two views which explain the mechanism of allergy, only a study can't convince me, because the conclusions about medicine are intricate, without long term strict clinical observation no one can get right explanations.

Second, since I don't know whether the two views are right, so when children exposure to the irritants or bacteria, they may still develop allergy according to the first view which explains allergy. Because the author assumes the second view is right, in this view the prerequisite excessive hygiene is emphasized. So if children can avoid irritants and bacteria, they won't be allergy according to the first view. But if the first view is right, when children encounter the irritants or bacteria, they will still be allergy according to the first view.

Third, the analysis to the study by the author is not rational. The author conclude that the children who often wash and whose parents clean their homes frequently are excessive hygiene, finally he indicate that the second view is right. However, these children maybe not excessive hygiene, no one can guarantee such an extent except in the libraries or the hospitals. Further more, the author doesn't refer these children have proper immune system. If they haven’t, they may generate an overreaction and will be considered as allergy wrongly according to the second view, but it’s actually because the first view. Thus, I can't proceed to get such a conclusion that the second view is rational according to the author’s analysis. Naturally, the author’s consideration that parents shouldn’t let their children exposure to irritants or bacteria based on the second view are not creditable.

To summarize, there should be more messages to strengthen the conclusion. Such as the accurate illustrations to the mechanism of allergy, the medical condition of these children in the study.

真的很崩溃。。。。。
感觉把自己都能说糊涂了

NarashyUID: 2602795

1# rokre2tt

In this argument, based on a new study, the author proposes that parents shouldn’t limit the children exposure to irritants or bacteria to avoid allergies. However, I can't share the conclusion with him for there are obvious logical flaws in his analysis.

First of all, whether these two views are all correct doesn't mention(was not mentioned) in the argument. Sometimes there is a phenomenon that we can get no less than one explanation to a disease. The author doesn’t give sufficient evidences to support these two views which explain the mechanism of allergy, only a study can't convince me, because the conclusions about medicine are intricate, without long term strict clinical observation no one can get right explanations.

Second, since I don't know whether the two views are right, so when children exposure to the irritants or bacteria, they may still develop allergy according to the first view which explains allergy. Because the author assumes the second view is right, in this view the prerequisite excessive hygiene is emphasized. So if children can avoid irritants and bacteria, they won't be allergy according to the first view. But if the first view is right, when children encounter the irritants or bacteria, they will still be allergy according to the first view.

Third, the analysis to the study by the author is not rational. The author conclude(conclude) that the children who often wash and whose parents clean their homes frequently are excessive hygiene(这句话的主干是：children are hygiene？）, finally he indicate（indicates) that the second view is right. However, these children maybe not excessive hygiene, no one can guarantee such an extent except in the libraries or the hospitals. Further more, the author doesn't refer these children have proper immune system. If they haven’t, they may generate an overreaction and will be considered as allergy wrongly according to the second view, but it’s actually because the first view. Thus, I can't proceed to get such a conclusion that the second view is rational according to the author’s analysis. Naturally, the author’s consideration that parents shouldn’t let their children exposure to irritants or bacteria based on the second view are not creditable.

To summarize, there should be more messages to strengthen the conclusion. Such as the accurate illustrations to the mechanism of allergy, the medical condition of these children in the study.

如楼主所说，有点乱。
建议楼主每段开头写一个主题句，表明这段的观点。而且这篇文章中，好像LZ存在着用观点1证明观点2的不正确，个人觉得有点不妥，可以直接攻击观点2的其他因素。

欢迎交流！

rokre2ttUID: 2714355

是啊，我刚开始没看懂题。
以为那两个观点只是两种猜测，那样就会出现我写的那种情况
重点搞错了
谢谢楼上