ARGU59 第一篇,没限时，欢迎砖头，必回拍

comingsoonUID: 175137

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 author argues that people at particular risk for the flu should therefore avoid prolonged exposure to the sun by citing the fact that the six worst worldwide flu epidemics during the past 300 years are just about the time when the Earth received significantly more solar energy than in normal years. However, a careful scrutiny of the recommendation reveals several problems, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the author wrongly assumes that prolonged exposure to the sun will lead to flu. However, the author fails to give any specific scientific evidence to show the direct causal relationship between the two. Furthermore, it runs contradict to our common sense that buskin the sunshine would do good to one's healthy. Lacking such evidence to indicate that exposure to the sun is the direct cause of the flu, the author's assertion seems groundless.

Furthermore, no information is given about whether there were other years with heavy sunspot activity besides those mentioned above and whether the flu burst out in those years. Thus it is entirely possible that there were not any worldwide flu epidemic in other possible years with heavy sunspot activities. Even if we concede that the six years mentioned above are the only six periods with heavy sunspot activities during the past 300 years, the argument remains questionable. The argument assumes that the correlation between the sunspot activities and the worldwide flu epidemics means that those activities have caused the severe flu. But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. In addition, the argument fails to consider the possibility that the fast-changing climate caused by heavy sunspot activities is the primary and direct reason for the worldwide flu epidemics.

Finally, even if sufficient evidence could be found to support the arguer's assumption that high sunspot activity would be the direct cause of flu, it is still an arbitrary idea to consider less exposure in the sunlight be an efficient way to avoid catching flu since no evidence is given to show that sunspot activities function through sunlight. It is very likely that the huge magnetic field caused by those heavy sunspot activities has a harmful effect on human metabolism and thus cause the infection of flu. If so, exposure to sunlight would have not any nexus with catching flu.

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The argument could be improved by providing evidence showing the causal relationship between heavy sunspot activities and the flu epidemics. It could be further improved by ruling out the explanations of prolonged exposure to sunlight as the primary reason of flu.

comingsoonUID: 175137

ding...

comingsoonUID: 175137

up...

mariaUID: 197971

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 author argues that people at particular risk for the flu should therefore avoid prolonged exposure to the sun by citing the fact that the six worst worldwide flu epidemics during the past 300 years are just about the time when the Earth received significantly more solar energy than in normal years. However, a careful scrutiny of the recommendation reveals several problems, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the author wrongly assumes that prolonged exposure to the sun will lead to flu. However, the author fails to give any specific scientific evidence to show the direct causal relationship between the twothings. Furthermore, it runs contradict towithour common sense that buskin什么意思？ the sunshine would do good to one's healthy. Lacking such指带不明 evidence to indicate that exposure to the sun is the direct cause of the flu, the author's assertion seems groundless.

Furthermore, no information is given about whether there were other years with heavy sunspot activity besides those mentioned above and whether the flu burst out in those years. Thus it is entirely possible that there were not any worldwide flu epidemic in other possible years with heavy sunspot activities. 看得有点不明白，你这样写不就是支持对方观点是正确的了?但是后面又来个even ifEven if we concede that the six years mentioned above are the only six periods with heavy sunspot activities during the past 300 years, the argument remains questionable. The argument assumes that the correlation between the sunspot activities and the worldwide flu epidemics means that those activities have caused the severe flu. But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. In addition, the argument fails to consider the possibility that the fast-changing climate caused by heavy sunspot activities is the primary and direct reason for the worldwide flu epidemics.感觉这段写得有些乱了，不知道你再写犯了什么错误
Finally, even if sufficient evidence could be found to support the arguer's assumption that high sunspot activity would be the direct cause of flu, it is still an arbitrary idea to consider less exposure in the sunlight be an efficient way to avoid catching flu since no evidence is given to show that sunspot activities function through sunlight. It is very likely that the huge magnetic field caused by those heavy sunspot activities has a harmful effect on human metabolism and thus causes the infection of flu. If so, exposure to sunlight would have not any nexus with catching flu.这一段写的最好

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The argument could be improved by providing evidence showing the causal relationship between heavy sunspot activities and the flu epidemics. It could be further improved by ruling out the explanations of prolonged exposure to sunlight as the primary reason of flu
楼主的开头结尾都写的很详细阿，不过我一般写得很少，主要是觉得时间不太够用，还不如多留时间分析一下他的错误，下面是我的一篇有空帮我瞅瞅吧
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=256063

comingsoonUID: 175137

第三段那句话我的意思是说如果有其他的太阳黑子活动剧烈年份没有出现流感流行的情况的话，那就说明两者没有什么关系。

谢谢maria了，我去看看你的。