argument59 -anan

zsa1983UID: 2299564

Argument59  第15篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分0秒     404 words
从2007年3月9日11时31分到2007年3月9日12时30分
------题目------
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------
The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. So I would not agree with the speaker's assertion that people at particular risk for the flu should therefore avoid prolonged exposure to the sun.

The threshold problem in the argument is that the causal relationship between flu epidemics and heavy sunspot activity is too vague to support the assertion. There is no directive evidence to illustrate that the heavy sunspot activity causes the flu epidemics. In the article, we cannot find the data of other years whether the heavy sunspot activity happens. If the speaker cannot rule out the heavy sunspot activity also occurring in other years, it is of no persuade to assert the relationship between the two things, far the causal relationship.

Another point worth considering is that even the relationship mentioned is substantiated; still the speaker can ensure that heavy sunspot activity has something to do with the people. It is great possible that the  heavy sunspot activity has affection on the flu vurse in that the flu vurse can be more easily to breed and to transmit while the  heavy sunspot activity. Perhaps the  heavy sunspot activity also make the person with more strong body but comparing to the flu, it is not enough. Therefore, the speaker cannot claim that heavy sunspot activity has bad affection on the people with such possibilities.

The third problem involves the speaker's account of people at particular risk for the flu. Even the heavy sunspot activity really affects the people to be worse, there is no evidence that the affection is happening to the people who is at particular risk. Perhaps to these people, the heavy sunspot activity hardly do affection for that these people always have a flu and the flu epidemics is the same to them as the usual. Or perhaps the people who are not at the risk are strongly affected by such sunspot activity which may do harm on their body. Without such convincing evidence to excluding the possibilities, I would not be credible to the assertion.

Even the people at particular risk for the flu is badly affected by the heavy sunspot activity, we also cannot agree that avoiding prolonged exposure at the sun will be of any use. Perhaps the best methods to pretend the flu are to taking some relative medicine.

In sum, the speaker should not justify his voting assertion on the basis of such scant evidence. To bolster the assertion, the speaker should provide enough convincing evidence that whether the heavy sunspot activity has affection on the flu and whether the heavy sunspot activity has bad affection on people. To better evaluate the assertion, I would need to know how the heavy sunspot activity may affect the people and what kinds of people the heavy sunspot activity is affecting.


[ 本帖最后由 zsa1983 于 2007-4-9 23:25 编辑 ]

PrudenceUID: 2286952

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. So I would not agree with the speaker's assertion that people at particular risk for the flu should therefore avoid prolonged exposure to the sun.（感觉像issue啊）

The（用a还是the,我忘了） threshold problem in the argument is that the causal relationship between flu epidemics and heavy sunspot activity is too vague to support the assertion. There is no directive evidence to illustrate that the heavy sunspot activity causes the flu epidemics. In the article, we also cannot find the data of other years whether the heavy sunspot activity happens. If the speaker cannot rule out the possibility that the heavy sunspot activity also occurring in other years, it is of no persuade (奇怪的用法  unpersuasive) to assert the relationship between the two things, far the causal relationship.(let alone the causal relationship)

Another point worth is worthy of considering is that even the relationship mentioned is substantiated; (,) still the speaker can not ensure that heavy sunspot activity has something to do with the people.(ts 与你的论证对应的不好，你下面攻击的是太阳黑子通过什么使人感冒的，而你的ts写的是太阳活动与人无关？？？)It is great possible that the heavy sunspot activity has affection on the flu vurse (virus) in that the flu vurse can be more easily to breed and to transmit while the heavy sunspot activity. Perhaps the heavy sunspot activity also makes the person with more strong body but comparing to the flu, it is not enough. Therefore, the speaker cannot claim that heavy sunspot activity has bad affection on the people with such possibilities.

The third problem involves the speaker's account of people at particular risk for the flu. Even the heavy sunspot activity really affects the people to be worse, there is no evidence that the affection is happening to the people who is at particular risk. Perhaps to these people, the heavy sunspot activity hardly do affection for that these people always have a flu and the flu epidemics is the same to them as the usual. Or perhaps the people who are not at the risk are strongly affected by such sunspot activity which may do harm on their body. Without such convincing evidence to excluding the possibilities, I would not be credible to the assertion.没有看懂，sorry!

Even the people at particular risk for the flu is badly affected by the heavy sunspot activity, we also cannot agree that avoiding prolonged exposure at the sun will be of any use. Perhaps the best methods to pretend the flu are to taking some relative medicine.是不是应该与上一段写一块啊
In sum, the speaker should not justify his voting assertion on the basis of such scant evidence. To bolster the assertion, the speaker should provide enough convincing evidence that whether the heavy sunspot activity has affection on the flu and whether the heavy sunspot activity has bad affection on people. To better evaluate the assertion, I would need to know how the heavy sunspot activity may affect the people and what kinds of people the heavy sunspot activity is affecting.
I have little idea about this argument, as it is really very difficult. Wish us three not come across it!