0606G同主题写作第二期--argument59

wendynengUID：2157675

提纲：1. 提供的survey reliability 值得怀疑，时间长久数据遗失，古代科技和统计水平局限性。样本不完整，300年不代表整个历史等
        2. 就算survey可靠，但只能说明是时间上的相关性，它因法说明没有因果关系
       3. recommendation可行性不行，没说明暴露时间长短，难道我整天呆在屋子里不要见人了？真荒唐。还有哪些是易感人群？其实实际经验还貌似太阳的好处，治疗季节忧郁症，提高免疫，作者没考虑这些好处就武断让我们不要晒太阳

A threshold problem involves the survey’s reliability and typicality. Confined to the technology of communication and level of scientific survey, the availability of the information about incidence of a disease in ancient is dubious in large measure. And I have all the reasons to conjure the incompleteness of the survey which undermines its reliability.  The arguer fails to account for the possibility if there was any other year with heavy sunspot activity, but without worldwide flu epidemics, which would had been damaged or just not found or even, not be recorded at all.  Actually, Compared with the history of human epidemics, 300 years is remote from a particularly long time frame to make a comprehensive conclusion. Yet the arguer provides no information aside from this period of time. Admittedly, the survey would be more rational if this period of time is indeed typical of the whole epidemic history, however. again no evidence rendered support it . In conclusion, the survey is dubious at best in terms of the correlation between the sunspot activity and incidence of flu in chronology,, that is, n the recorded 300 years, let alone the whole history.

Even assuming the survey is statistically complete and the sample is typical of the whole history, the arguer go further by equating the correlation in chronology with the immediate casual relationship between S A and F E without ruling out other alternative crucial factors also directly or indirectly contribute to the F E.
. It is entirely possible that the flu epidemics were due to the weather deterioration caused by heavy sunspot activity. Common sense informs us that an abnormal increase or decrease in temperature or an unusual drought or flood, might make the spread of virus more easily and thus cause wide flu epidemics.  Also, there were many other factors—such as the wars and worldwide famines—that contributed to the worldwide flu epidemics despite the sunspot activity. Without eliminating this and other explanations for the results, it is quite unfair to draw the conclusion that the S A is the chief criminal for F E.

Even the all fore going assumption is true, the recommendation that the People at particular risk for the flu should therefore avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun is to some what ridiculous in terms of feasibility. The arguer provides no criteria of the extent to which the time exposure to sun is precarious enough to cause the disease, or the detailed definition of the genre of people susceptible to catch the disease. Without the information, we just can not take any provision to avoid the F E, even if we accepted the arguer’s theory. Not to mention, as a matter of fact through empirical experience, moderate sun activity is wholesome to people with regard to adjusting the mood and boosting the spirit and to cure the seasonal affective disorder.  It’s entirely possible this merits is good to people’s immunity Yet the arguer fails to preclude the possibility.Therefore the recommendation referred to avoid the sun exposure seems rashy and precipitous

djc1984UID：2188214

有一点大家似乎没有提到

就是太阳黑子爆发----》日照太强---》所以人们呆在屋子里———》流感增加
---------》所以作者的建议恰恰造成反效果

kittywen_16UID：2135347

加油，这周之内也贴出来

kittywen_16UID：2135347

我的提纲：
1、300年的时间不足以说明两者之间有因果关系。在此之外的年份，是否也爆发过大规模流感，是否太阳黑子也曾活动异常，两者是否也同时出现，作者没有给出足够证据。
2、没有考虑其他引起流感的原因，如饥荒。或者，即使是黑子活动剧烈引起，也不一定是过量的太阳光造成流感蔓延。
3没有确切定义易感人群，过长时间没有指明多长时间
  分析时觉得不难写，但一提起笔才发现有些艰难，是练习得少了还是题目本身就有难度呢……
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D102