Argu59 请大家评批指正 有两句大错误不会改

wwwxxxjjj1UID: 2676447

Merely based on the unfounded and dubious evidence,the statement draws the conclusion that people should avoid exposure to the sunfor the long time. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out evidencethat the world had suffered the worst worldwide flu epidemics in the year whichthe earth received heavy solar energy. In addition, he indicates that it's thetime with heavy sunspot activity. Furthermore, he infers that it's an availablemedical record for the past 300 years. The arguer ignores certain importantconcerns, which must be addressed to prove. In my point of view, really does itthe solar energy cause the flu? Is it inevitable that the earth received thehuge solar energy when the sunspot activity? Is the record enough to get the result?


The assumption is that because people had the flu when the earthacculturates the significant solar energy. Unfortunately, it's not convinced.Most obviously, not all the patients always wander outside. They may get itbecause of their family or friend who had already suffered infect them, just bythe air transmission. And also then it had a gigantic rate of birth, it's easythat the less immunity baby contracted the flu. Or it were windy everywhere,it's helpful for the injection of the flu.




Secondly, assuming that it was true the years when sunspot activity, itis illogical to say the earth received more energy than other time. We can'tget enough information from the statement that the activity of sunspot willenhance the capability of the sun. It is susceptive that the energy would besignificant those years. In addition, even if the sun released a lot of solarenergy, does the earth receive it all? As we all know, there is an air envelopearound the earth. It can be thought as a screen to protect us from overmuchradiation, solar energy included.


Finally, Because of human history is more than thousands of years, 300years and six worst disasters are insufficient. We really need more specificand complete report to support the major idea.


The paragraph given merely scratches the unconvincing reason for theflu's disaster explosion. It’s may only one of the numerous reasons. It isdifficult to conclude the idea which the arguer states. And there are alsoseveral obvious critical flaws.