ARGUMENT81 找批：）

冥界星灿UID: 184746

81Allergies are an overreaction of the immune system to certain stimuli. One view is that

allergies can develop as the result of childhood exposure to certain irritants, such as dust

or animal dander, while the immune system is not yet mature. Another view is that exposure

to particular bacteria early in childhood actually triggers the proper development of the

immune system, and that limiting exposure to these bacteria through excessive hygiene can

cause children's immune systems to overreact to certain irritants later on. A new study

supports the second view: children who are washed especially frequently and whose parents

clean their homes especially frequently are more likely to develop allergies than are other

children. So in order to reduce the incidence of allergies in children and adults, parents

should not limit children's exposure to irritants or bacteria.


When suggesting parents do not limit children's exposure to irritates or bacteria, the

author provides two hypotheses to be alternatively selected concerning the causes of the

allergies. In addition, the author cites a new study, which seemed to support the second

hypothesis, which hold the same view with the author. Take a closer exam to the article we

could find both the study located and the line of reasoning actually suffer from a series of

critical fallacies, which eventually lead to the inconvincible of the position.

To begin with, the study cited could not seem to appropriate enough to strengthen the second

view. Firstly, the children who are washed and whose parents clean their homes especially

frequently can not represent the children with limiting exposure to particular bacteria.

Perhaps the bacteria do not infect human beings through contact. Consider, for example,

bacteria infect person through alimentary canal cannot be killed by just clean the baby's

body and surrounding. Secondly, little information is delivered to inform us the health

condition of the children and their parents sampled and thus we have good reason to keep

suspicious of its reliability. It is possible the parents wash their children and clean

their house more frequently for the reason that they are suffering allergies and the

children whose parents are allergies patients are more apt to get allergies. It is also

possible that the parents clean the children and their surrounding for the simple reason

that the children are patients who suffer from bacteria. Last but not least, the lack of

information about the quantity of the sample, the span of the time and so forth are not

depict which seriously impede it to convince the reader. Therefore, the action of the

cleaning is just the reason of the allergies, not the cause. As the case stands, the study

cannot illustrate the second view's validity.

Furthermore, even assuming the second view is correct we could not illustrate the first view

is false. It is possible limiting exposure to certain bacteria do conduce to allergies

whereas infect by other bacteria can equally introduce allergies. In these cases, both

hypotheses may be provable to some extent as circumstance changes. Therefore, it is

presumptuous to suggest parents of children not to clean the house through which the

bacteria, which may cause allergies, will have more chance to infect children.

Even further, without two main problem located above, we could not get the conclusion the

children's parents should not limit both children's and adult's exposure to bacteria and

irritates. In the first place, exposure to given bacteria can educe the chance to get

allergies dose not mean all bacteria have the same function. Most bacteria can cause disease

not to defend it. No doubt a child who always expose to all kinds of bacteria will more

prone to get disease and in a poor health condition. In the second place, bacteria is one

kind of irritate and we could not get the conclusion that all irritates are feasible to

prevent children from allergies. Finally, we could not advise adult to keep away from

certain bacteria for the only reason that these organism could cause allergies in children.

All that can be conclude by assembling the evidence and reasons provided by the author is

that the conclusion is not eloquent as it stands. To further support the conclusion, the

author must deliver convincing studies results and logical reasons in an appropriate manner.

poohUID: 146994

自己先帖到word里面修改一下格式吧

冥界星灿UID: 184746

81Allergies are an over reaction of the immune system to certain stimuli. One view is that allergies can develop as the result of childhood exposure to certain irritants, such as dust or animal dander, while the immune system is not yet mature. Another view is that exposure to particular bacteria early in childhood actually triggers the proper development of the immune system, and that limiting exposure to these bacteria through excessive hygiene can cause children's immune systems to overreact to certain irritants later on. A new study supports the second view: children who are washed especially frequently and whose parents clean their homes especially frequently are more likely to develop allergies than are other children. So in order to reduce the incidence of allergies in children and adults, parents should not limit children's exposure to irritants or bacteria.


When suggesting parents do not limit children's exposure to irritates or bacteria, the author provides two hypotheses to be alternatively selected concerning the causes of the allergies. In addition, the author cites a new study, which seemed to support the second hypothesis, which hold the same view with the author. Take a closer exam to the article we could find both the study located and the line of reasoning actually suffer from a series of critical fallacies, which eventually lead to the inconvinciblity of the position.

To begin with, the study cited could not seem to appropriate enough to strengthen the second view. Firstly, the children who are washed and whose parents clean their homes especially frequently can not represent the children with limiting exposure to particular bacteria. Perhaps the bacteria do not infect human beings through contact. Consider, for example, bacteria infect person through alimentary canal cannot be killed by just clean the baby's body and surrounding. Secondly, little information is delivered to inform us the health condition of the children and their parents sampled and thus we have good reason to keep suspicious of its reliability. It is possible the parents wash their children and clean their house more frequently for the reason that they are suffering allergies and the children whose parents are allergies patients are more apt to get allergies. It is also possible that the parents clean the children and their surrounding for the simple reason that the children are patients who suffer from  bacteria. Last but not least, the lack of information about the quantity of the sample, the span of the time and so forth are not depict which seriously impede it to convince the reader. Therefore, the action of the cleaning is just the reason of the allergies, not the cause. As the case stands, the study cannot illustrate the second view's validity.

Furthermore, even assuming the second view is correct we could not illustrate the first view is false. It is possible limiting exposure to certain bacteria do conduce to allergies whereas infect by other bacteria can equally introduce allergies. In these cases, both hypotheses may be provable to some extent as circumstance changes. Therefore, it is resumptuous to suggest parents of children not to clean the house through which the bacteria, which may cause allergies, will have more chance to infect children.

Even further, without two main problem located above, we could not get the conclusion the children's parents should not limit both children's and adult's exposure to bacteria and irritates. In the first place, exposure to given bacteria can educe the chance to get allergies dose not mean all bacteria have the same function. Most bacteria can cause disease not to defend it. No doubt a child who always expose to all kinds of bacteria will more prone to get disease and in a poor health condition. In the second place, bacteria is one kind of irritate and we could not get the conclusion that all irritates are feasible to prevent children from allergies. Finally, we could not advise adult to keep away from
certain bacteria for the only reason that these organism could cause allergies in children.

All that can be conclude by assembling the evidence and reasons provided by the author is that the conclusion is not eloquent as it stands. To further support the conclusion, the author must deliver convincing studies results and logical reasons in an appropriate manner.

LSDUID: 157855

好长啊，看看先

冥界星灿UID: 184746

好长是因为想了一个小时，写了三个小时，改了三个小时。

现在知道我为什么那么羡慕你了吧？唉唉艾！

LSDUID: 157855

81Allergies are an over reaction of the immune system to certain stimuli. One view is that allergies can develop as the result of childhood exposure to certain irritants, such as dust or animal dander, while the immune system is not yet mature. Another view is that exposure to particular bacteria early in childhood actually triggers the proper development of the immune system, and that limiting exposure to these bacteria through excessive hygiene can cause children's immune systems to overreact to certain irritants later on. A new[ study ]supports the second view: children who are washed especially frequently and whose parents clean their homes especially frequently are more likely to develop allergies than are other children. [So in order to reduce the incidence of allergies in children and adults, parents should not limit children's exposure to irritants or bacteria. ]


When suggesting parents do not limit children's exposure to irritates or bacteria, the author provides two hypotheses to be alternatively selected concerning the causes of the allergies. In addition, the author cites a new study, which seemed to support the second hypothesis, which hold the same view with the author. Take a closer exam to the article we could find both the study located and the line of reasoning actually suffer from a series of critical fallacies, which eventually lead to the inconvinciblity of the position. [个人觉得开头有点罗嗦了，其实没有必要写这么多原因，在后面的论述都有提到，所以我觉得argument的开头笼统说一下就行了]

To begin with, the study cited could not seem to appropriate enough to strengthen the second[这里最好具体一点] view. Firstly, the children who are washed and whose parents clean their homes especially frequently can not represent the children with limiting exposure to particular bacteria. Perhaps the bacteria do not infect human beings through contact. Consider, for example, bacteria infect person through alimentary canal cannot be killed by just clean the baby's body and surrounding. Secondly, little information is delivered to inform us the health condition of the children and their parents sampled and thus we have good reason to keep suspicious of its reliability. It is possible the parents wash their children and clean their house more frequently for the reason that they are suffering allergies and the children whose parents are allergies patients are more apt to get allergies. It is also possible that the parents clean the children and their surrounding for the simple reason that the children are patients who suffer from bacteria. Last but not least, the lack of information about the quantity of the sample, the span of the time and so forth are not depict which seriously impede it to convince the reader.[这点我觉得应该放在最前面阿，这是试验结果可靠性的前提，前提都没有的话，后面就更甭提了，后面的内容可以用让步来说，显得更有说服力些] Therefore, the action of the cleaning is just the reason of the allergies, not the cause. As the case stands, the study cannot illustrate the second view's validity.

Furthermore, even assuming the second view is correct we could not illustrate the first[还是不太明确，所以建议开头一笔带过，后面具体指明] view is false. It is possible limiting exposure to certain bacteria do conduce to allergies whereas infect by other bacteria can equally introduce allergies. In these cases, both hypotheses may be provable to some extent as circumstance changes. Therefore, it is resumptuous to suggest parents of children not to clean the house through which the bacteria, which may cause allergies, will have more chance to infect children. [这点说的不是很清楚啊]

Even further, without two main problem located above, we could not get the conclusion the children's parents should not limit both children's and adult's exposure to bacteria and irritates. In the first place, exposure to given bacteria can educe the chance to get allergies dose not mean all bacteria have the same function. Most bacteria can cause disease not to defend it. No doubt a child who always expose to all kinds of bacteria will more prone to get disease and in a poor health condition. In the second place, bacteria is one kind of irritate and we could not get the conclusion that all irritates are feasible to prevent children from allergies. Finally, we could not advise adult to keep away from
certain bacteria for the only reason that these organism could cause allergies in children.

All that can be conclude by assembling the evidence and reasons provided by the author is that the conclusion is not eloquent as it stands. To further support the conclusion, the author must deliver convincing studies results and logical reasons in an appropriate manner.
[感觉写得像issue比较具体，但楼主要注意限制时间]

冥界星灿UID: 184746

谢谢LSD,

我看文章总是无可避免的在头脑里出现文章的论证思路，所以总想在开头总结一下原文论证结构，确实有点罗嗦，但是也是我文章的批驳主线。写了好像脉络清楚一些，但是很罗嗦，又费时间。真不知怎么办

段首是很笼统那，有道理！

BODY2 说得就是不清楚，谢谢提醒^_^

时间是个大问题，练熟了我会尽快提速！

再次感谢！！！