Arguement59 飞跃 dreams 第二次作业

wxtxxmUID: 2339833

59.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 argument, the arguer makes the conclusion that people who are at particular risk for the flu should avoid the long time exposure in the sun, only through the time coincidence of heavy sunspot activity and flu epidemics. I suppose that the arguer’s idea does not have validity. The reasons are as follows.

First of all, the arguer points out that the available medical records shows that the worst flu epidemic all over the world. How do the medical records be got? The arguer lacks clear evidence to tell us the report are effective. It is entirely possible that the report are made only by some people, or made through a small region. Besides, the definition of “the worst” is worthy to think over. Perhaps different areas have different standards to see the “worst”. May be some areas use the number of people who get flu, and other areas can certainly take the domestic fowl to be the standard, such as bird, goose, chicken and etc. So the author should give me more optimistical evidence to strengthen the report’s validity.

Secondly, I concede that the report is effective, but the flu may not have relationship with sunspot activity. Only by that the sunspot activity are heavier than other years in 1729,1830,and etc, I can not believe that the flu is caused by sunspot activity. It is obvious that many other things happened in these yeas, if we use the logical of arguer, can we guess that all the things are the reason of flu? I can not accept that two things have relationship only because that they happened at the same time. Perhaps there are other factors which cause the flu, for example, the increasing of domestic fowl, the decreasing of people’s immune ability, and so on.

Thirdly, even if the sunspot activity influence the flu, can people’s avoiding long time exposure to the sun be good to people? All we know that solar energy is good to healthy, and there are other ways to help people to avoid flu which are better than the author gives. For example, people can reinforce their eating nutirlite so that to strengthen the body immune ability. Even we can make people to prevent the domestic fowl or strengthen the sanitary condition of fowl. Additionally, we can focus more energy on the fowl owners’ training on this aspect.

In sum, this argument fails to persuade me because it has so many flaws. The arguer should give me more clear evidence on the validity of report, the relative between sunspot activity and flu, and etc, to support his conclusion.

[ 本帖最后由 wxtxxm 于 2008-1-30 13:34 编辑 ]

Marvelous_czUID: 2451875

In this argument, the arguer makes the conclusion that people who are at particular risk for the flu should avoid the long time exposure in the sun, only through the time coincidence of heavy sunspot activity and flu epidemics. I suppose that the arguer’s idea does not have validity. The reasons are as follows.

First of all, the arguer points out that the available medical records shows that the worst flu epidemic all over the world. How do the medical records be got?(是不是该把那个be去了。。总觉得不顺，我也不确定，word也说这有问题) The arguer lacks clear evidence to tell us the report are effective. It is entirely possible that the report are made only by some people, or made through a small region. Besides, the definition of “the worst” is worthy to think over. Perhaps different areas have different standards to see the “worst”. May be some areas use the number of people who get flu, and other areas can certainly take the domestic fowl to be the standard, such as bird, goose, chicken and etc.（恩，这段分析得不错，我没有想到worst还能分标准这一层。） So the author should give me more optimistical（这词要表达什么意思？） evidence to strengthen the report’s validity.

Secondly, I concede that the report is effective, but the flu may not have relationship with sunspot activity. Only by that the sunspot activity are heavier than other years in 1729,1830,and etc, I can not believe that the flu is caused by sunspot activity. It is obvious that many other things happened in these yeas, if we use the logical of arguer, can we guess that all the things are the reason of flu? （作为一篇逻辑性文章最好用假设的语气说会比较科学一些，如果用obvious 来说可能有些太绝对了）I can not accept that two things have relationship only because that they happened at the same time. Perhaps there are other factors which cause the flu, for example, the increasing of domestic fowl, the decreasing of people’s immune ability, and so on. 觉得你些巧合的批评文章挺自然的。。。这个我得学学，我就不大会写这点

Thirdly, even if the sunspot activity influence the flu, can people’s avoiding long time exposure to the sun be good to people? All we know that solar energy is good to healthy, （就我所知，all we know这种你看似常识的东西不要用这种方式出现，GRE是无差别考试，可能有些人就不知道这点，在这里还是用perhaps之类的语气说更加保险，新东方里也是这么教的。。。）and there are other ways to help people to avoid flu which are better than the author gives. For example, people can reinforce their eating nutirlite （？？）so that to strengthen the body immune ability. Even we can make people to prevent the domestic fowl or strengthen the sanitary condition of fowl. Additionally, we can focus more energy on the fowl owners’ training on this aspect.
我认为这段的核心重点还是应该围绕太阳光不会增加得流感的危险和躲避太阳光并不会减低得流感的概率这一问题来讨论，不用说太多别的防止流感的方法，这并不能深入地批判文章的漏洞我感觉。

In sum, this argument fails to persuade me because it has so many flaws. The arguer should give me more clear evidence on the validity of report, the relative between sunspot activity and flu, and etc, to support his conclusion.
总体还是秉承了你的一贯的作风，可有些地方的把握感觉不是很到位，但我能体会到已经比第一次作业时写的丰满多了~继续加油吧~

[ 本帖最后由 Marvelous_cz 于 2008-1-30 13:42 编辑 ]