Argument59 同主题写作。希望大家指点！

Echo_1900UID: 2180165

59
In the argument ,the auger recommends that people who are at particular risk for the flu should not prolong their exposure to the sun. To substantiate his/her conclusion, the author cites a survey to the now-available medical records about the relationship between the occurrence of the flu epidemics and the action of the heavy sunspot activity . In addition , we can logically infer from the argument that he/she indicates that there is a causal relationship between them . The arguer’s analysis seems rational at the first glance ,however ,a meticulous examination of the argument would reveal how groundless it is .

To begin with ,the argument rests upon so-called “the available medical records” .Plus , the arguer listed the statistic of the recent 300 years in which flu epidemics have occurred . Whereas, the arguer provides no assurance that the survey on which the argument depends is statistically . Through out the argument we can not find evidence that the available record definitely are integrated records that can veraciously reflect the actual condition of such periods. For example ,we can imagine that there were once some lost medical records in existence when the epidemic occurred other than the six years that have been listed . Especially , the years of those records may not coincident with that of the heavy sunspot activity. Thus , the possibility casts tremendous doubt over the reliability of the indication that there is casual relationship between the heavy sun spot activity and the occurrence of the worldwide flu epidemics.

Even assuming that the available records are able to explicitly reflect the reality of the past 300 years , the arguer fails to eliminate other possibilities that may result in the fierce outbreak the world flu epidemic. We can infer with common sense and experience that the standard of the medical care and the hygiene conscience of the previous times was not as developed as it is today . The occurrence of the flu epidemic in the large scale may probably not as the result of the sun spot actively but the infection among people. Nature calamity or perhaps the war both can lead to the attack. In short ,the author fails to prove that the sun spot activity is but one inducement of the epidemic.

Last but not the least, assume that all the arguer’s assumptions and analysis are substantiated , the author undoubtedly makes a hasty conclusion that people at particular risk for the flu should avoid prolonged exposure. The phrase “particular risk ” and the word “prolonged ” obscure the generalization. Who is the people at a particular risk and what standard of risk it is ? How much time equals to the “prolonged time ”? Yet ,the argument contains no evidence to take into account of them therefore leading to the incredibility of the conclusion.

In summary ,this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing , the arguer should provide more evidence to rule out other possible causes of the occurrence of the worldwide flu epidemic. To better evaluate the argument ,we need more concrete evidence that the now availably evidence is integrated enough to reflect the condition of the past 300 years. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above , it would have been more thorough and adequate.

[ 本帖最后由 yogurt4 于 2006-2-3 12:13 编辑 ]

lhg_jzUID: 188521

写得不错,赞一个

Echo_1900UID: 2180165

多谢楼上的鼓励!!!

yogurt4UID: 198389

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... e%3D2#pid1768043380
17楼

Echo_1900UID: 2180165

To colaboy

我Issue晚上交
Argument 59，前两天写过的 ，还是请colaboy拍拍吧。
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ge=1&highlight=

你的文章我明早前帮你改好

colaboyUID: 206650

In the argument ,the auger recommends that people who are at particular risk for the flu should not prolong their exposure to the sun. To substantiate his/her conclusion, the author cites a survey to the now-available medical records about the relationship between the occurrence of the flu epidemics and the action of the heavy sunspot activity . In addition , we can logically infer from the argument that he/she indicates that there is a causal relationship between them . The arguer’s analysis seems rational at the first glance ,however ,a meticulous examination of the argument would reveal how groundless it is .
开头写得不错,就打错一个单词,用词用得好!

To begin with ,the argument rests upon so-called “the available medical records” .Plus , the arguer listed the statistic of the recent 300 years in which flu epidemics have occurred . Whereas, the arguer provides no assurance that the survey on which the argument depends is statistically(感觉用static较好,statically是adv吧?) . Through out the argument we can not find evidence that the available record definitely are(两个词交换一下位置) integrated records that can veraciously reflect the actual condition of such periods. For example ,we can imagine that there were once some lost medical records in existence when the epidemic occurred other than the six years that have been listed . Especially , the years of those records may not coincident with that of the heavy sunspot activity. Thus , the possibility casts tremendous doubt over the reliability of the indication that there is casual relationship between the heavy sun spot activity and the occurrence of the worldwide flu epidemics.
长句子用得比我强啊,拜你为师了！有些句子我都没想到

Even assuming that the available records are able to explicitly reflect the reality of the past 300 years , the arguer fails to eliminate other possibilities that may result in the fierce outbreak the world flu epidemic. We can infer with common sense and experience that the standard of the medical care and the hygiene conscience of the previous times was not as developed as it is today . The occurrence of the flu epidemic in the large scale may probably not as the result of the sun spot actively but the infection among people. Nature calamity or perhaps the war both can lead to the attack. In short ,the author fails to prove that the sun spot activity is but one inducement of the epidemic.
几乎没有什么错误，例子恰当，确凿，有力


Last but not the least, assume that all the arguer’s assumptions and analysis are substantiated , the author undoubtedly makes a hasty conclusion that people at particular risk for the flu should avoid prolonged exposure. The phrase “particular risk ” and the word “prolonged ” obscure the generalization. Who is the people at a particular risk and what standard of risk it is ? How much time equals to the “prolonged time ”? Yet ,the argument contains no evidence to take into account of them therefore leading to the incredibility of the conclusion.

In summary ,this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing , the arguer should provide more evidence to rule out other possible causes of the occurrence of the worldwide flu epidemic. To better evaluate the argument ,we need more concrete evidence that the now availably(the contemporary available) evidence is integrated enough to reflect the condition of the past 300 years. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above , it would have been more thorough and adequate.
结尾感觉还差一点点，应该把前面的逻辑错再有机的结合一下，这篇文章就差不多了。

写得不错啊，赞！ 感觉我写的那篇好烂啊。:(

didocatUID: 2156998

59[首先，写完后请帖到word里自己检查。。。我这都是绿杠杠，说明你的格式不太对。]
In the argument ,the auger recommends that people who are at particular risk for the flu should not prolong their exposure to the sun. To substantiate his/her conclusion, the author cites a survey to the now-available medical records about the relationship between the occurrence of the flu epidemics and the action of the heavy sunspot activity . In addition , we can logically infer from the argument that he/she indicates that there is a causal relationship between them . The arguer’s analysis seems rational at the first glance ,however ,a meticulous examination of the argument would reveal how groundless it is .

To begin with ,the argument rests upon so-called “the available medical records” .Plus [plus这个词比较不正式，不推荐使用], the arguer listed[lists] the statistic[+s] of the recent 300 years in which flu epidemics have occurred . Whereas, the arguer provides no assurance that the survey on which the argument depends is statistically[是不是少了reliable???] . Through out the argument we can not find evidence that the available record definitely are integrated[语序不对,are definitely integrated] records that can veraciously reflect the actual condition of such periods. For example ,we can imagine that there were once some lost medical records in existence when the epidemic occurred other than the six years that have been listed . Especially[感觉不太舒服，但不知道对不对] , the years of those records may not coincident[这是个形容词，这句话的谓语在哪里？？] with that of the heavy sunspot activity. Thus , the possibility casts tremendous doubt over the reliability of the indication that there is casual relationship between the heavy sun spot activity and the occurrence of the worldwide flu epidemics.

Even assuming that the available records are able to explicitly[看最后] reflect the reality of the past 300 years , the arguer fails to eliminate other possibilities that may result in the fierce outbreak [+of] the world flu epidemic. We can infer with common sense and experience that the standard of the medical care and the hygiene conscience of the previous times was not as developed as it is today . The occurrence of the flu epidemic[+s] in the[去掉] large scale may probably not as the result of the sun spot actively but the infection among people. Nature calamity or perhaps the war both can lead to the attack. In short ,the author fails to prove that the sun spot activity is but [+the only]one inducement of the epidemic.

Last but not the least, assume[换granted] that all the arguer’s assumptions and analysis are substantiated , the author undoubtedly makes a hasty conclusion that people at particular risk for the flu should avoid prolonged exposure. The phrase “particular risk ” and the word “prolonged ” obscure the generalization. Who is the people at a particular risk and what standard of risk it is ? How much time equals to the “prolonged time ”? Yet ,the argument contains no evidence to take into account of them [+and]therefore leading to the incredibility of the conclusion.

In summary ,this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing , the arguer should provide more evidence to rule out other possible causes of the occurrence of the worldwide flu epidemic. To better evaluate the argument ,we need more concrete evidence that the now availably evidence is integrated enough to reflect the condition of the past 300 years. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above , it would have been more thorough and adequate.

怎么说呢 感觉现在大家可能是没时间或者没心情认真修改的缘故，看了这么多互改的，应该说改得认真的详细的并不多，其实好多词自己想一下，用的并不是很准确，比如尚文中第2段第一句的explicitly，这个词的意思M-W中是： fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity，就是明确的 意思，那么这里是不是换成准确的更好？比如reflect with a fair degree of accuracy.

当然，我水平也有限~只是想大家都认真一点，不仅是对别人负责，自己也会得到很大的提高~ 一起加油吧！

[ 本帖最后由 didocat 于 2006-2-4 18:29 编辑 ]

Echo_1900UID: 2180165

感谢 colaboy 和didocat 的悉心批改！
同意didocat 的“大家都认真一点，不仅是对别人负责，自己也会得到很大的提高”
寄托路上，我们并不孤单，因为大家互相支撑着，一定能走下去！