Argument59 第一篇限时！请赐教

sblbaslerUID: 175229

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.'
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer concludes that people who are at the risk for the flu should therefore avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun.. To substantiate the claim, the arguer presents evidence that the breakout of flu which suffered a great number of people severely keeps pace with the heavy sunspot activity. While this argument has some merits, it is vulnerable in several critical flaws that seriously undermine the line of reasoning.

First, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the occurrence of the six worst worldwide flu during the 300 years and the heavy sunspot activity. As we know, the cycle of sunspot activity is about 11 years but not in every 11 years a breakout of flu, whether server or not, will happen. It is very possible that the evidence the arguer cites is nothing but a concurrency, therefore unwarranted.

Second, the arguer ignores other factors------ the typical cycle of flu, the decreasing ability of people's immune system for some uncertain reason, the changing of gene of flu which makes the medicine useless-------- that may be more essential than the sunspot activity in determining the occurrence of flu. As the proceeding discussion, that flu, though researched thoroughly by scientists, could change its gene which we cannot participate now, not mentioning hundreds of years ago may play a more crucial role in its occurrence. What's more, the arguer fails to supply any future statistic number to ensure that it is the sunspot activity that makes the flu happen.

Granted that the arguer's assumption is reliable, we cannot advocate that people at particular risk for the flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun. In this specific conclusion, the arguer fails to deliberate the information that how long could be defined as long. Therefore we cannot know the meaning of the word "prolong", 1 hour, 1 day, or 1 year and even more. Moreover, the arguer ignores the other possible benefits of exposure to the Sun. A common sense tells us that the ray of sun, containing the various lengths of lights, could kill some bacterium effectively, including flu. And this way is more favorable than taking in medicine, which has been demonstrated to have a counterproductive. So blindly avoiding the exposure to the sun is quite detrimental.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands for lack of supplying convincing evidence between flu and sunspot activity. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that sunspot activity is the only way can result in flu; To make it more convincing, the arguer has to prove that exposure to the sun dose not have any positive effect on recover from the flu but only negative one.

sblbaslerUID: 175229

怎么没有人顶呀，我会回的

sblbaslerUID: 175229

是不是写的太模式化了，一点技术含量都没有，大家都不愿意看呀

flyingwindUID: 189320

没人拍吗？我来！
这个argu比较难，却是机警题目哦

In this argument, the arguer concludes that people who are at the risk for the flu should therefore avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun.. To substantiate the claim, the arguer presents evidence that the breakout of flu which suffered a great number of people severely keeps pace with the heavy sunspot activity. While this argument has some merits, it is vulnerable in several critical flaws that seriously undermine the line of reasoning.

First, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the occurrence of the six worst worldwide flu during the 300 years and the heavy sunspot activity. As we know, the cycle of sunspot activity is about 11 years but not in every 11 years a breakout of flu, whether server or not, will happen. 这种需要专业知识的，是不是不需要写的？It is very possible that the evidence the arguer cites is nothing but a concurrency, therefore unwarranted.

Second, the arguer ignores other factors------ the typical cycle of flu, the decreasing ability of people's immune system for some uncertain reason, the changing of gene of flu这个社么意思 which makes the medicine useless-------- that may be more essential than the sunspot activity in determining the occurrence of flu. As the proceeding discussion, that flu, though researched thoroughly by scientists, could change its gene基因？ which we cannot participate now, not mentioning hundreds of years ago may play a more crucial role in its occurrence. What's more, the arguer fails to supply any future statistic number to ensure that it is the sunspot activity that makes the flu happen.

finally！Granted that the arguer's assumption is reliable, we cannot advocate that people at particular risk for the flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun. In this specific conclusion, the arguer fails to deliberate the information that how long could be defined as long. Therefore we cannot know the meaning of the word "prolong", 1 hour, 1 day, or 1 year这个比较独特，可能不错哎 and even more. Moreover, the arguer ignores the other possible benefits of exposure to the Sun这种不知道可以说不. A common sense tells us that the ray of sun, containing the various lengths of lights, could kill some bacterium effectively, including flu. And this way is more favorable than taking in medicine, which has been demonstrated to have a counterproductive. So blindly avoiding the exposure to the sun is quite detrimental.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands for lack of supplying convincing evidence between flu and sunspot activity. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that sunspot activity is the only way can result in flu; To make it more convincing, the arguer has to prove that exposure to the sun dose not have any positive effect on recover from the flu but only negative one.罗嗦