Argument59 [飞跃dreams小组]第二次作业

纳兰馨儿UID: 2437109

TOPIC: ARGUMENT59 - 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."
WORDS: 424          TIME: 00:50:00          DATE: 2008/1/29 15:55:03

The aticle give the people at particular risk for the flu a suggestion that they should not expose to the sun  based on the assumption that heavy sunspot will be the main cause of the desease. To support his senario , the speaker also provides a record that shows the relation between the flu and the sunspot-activity . This conclusion is not well-reasoned for  a few fallacies as follows.

The first point that I cannot agree with the arguer is the hausty generation on the relation between the epidemics and the sunspot activity. What the  record tell us is only the coincidence of the two phenominon without any further information on the cause and effect relationship . In that case ,we cannot know whether the solor energy is normal or not in the left  295 years. Possibly the frenquency of the sunspot activity is much more than that of the flu ,therefore there were more years that did not have any flu had still sufferred  from the sunspot actibity .In that case the two phenominons may have no  enfluence on each other and we do not to dare the flu especially when the solar energy is  abnormal.

Secondly, the arguar also make a false analogy on the sunspot activity and the exposure to the sun. Even if we assume that the solar energy has negative effect on the flu. It does not mean that we can avoid that enfluence by staying in the shade for there is a complex effect of the heavy sunspot activity ,whose solar energy is significantly more than the normal level. We can find out a lot of things that will be beneficial in a certain level and will change to be  harmful without limit ,such as the alchohal, the medicine, etc. Even every thing should have be conctroled in an adaptable level and so does the solar energy. We all know that it is nessary to the growth the plants , to kill  various kinds of virus ,   and can be a effective prevention toward the cancer of the skin. Thus without any complete information on the real change of the flu caused by the prolonged exposure,we can not make sure that whether people will be at risk.


To sum up, the artical is not convincing and logical. To strengthen the conclusion , the arguer have to find more evidences to confirm the relation between the sunspot activity  and  the flu epidemics.Also more research should be taken on the details of the different influence of the sunspot activity .

yolanda419UID: 2420192

The aticle（article） give the people at particular risk for the flu a suggestion that they should not prolonged(文中说的是长时间曝露，这样可能比较严谨) expose to the sun  based on the assumption that heavy sunspot will be the main cause of the desease(disease). To support his scenarios, the speaker also provides a record that shows the relation between the flu and the sunspot-activity.（这句话很容易让人误会flu and sunspot-activity之间已经存在某种关联，而作者要指出的应该是两个出现时间的巧合，我的表达建议是：The years, in which the six worst worldwide flu epidemics occurred, heavy sunspot activity broke out.） This conclusion is not well-reasoned for a few fallacies as follows.

The first point that I cannot agree with the arguer is the hausty generation on the relation between the epidemics and the sunspot activity. What the record tell us is only the coincidence of the two phenominon(phenomena) without any further information on the cause and effect relationship . In that case, we cannot know whether the solor(solar) energy is normal or not in the left  295 years. Possibly the frenquency(frequency) of the sunspot activity is much more than that of the flu ,therefore there were more years that did not have any flu had still sufferred(suffered)  from the sunspot actibity(activity) .In that case the two phenominons(phenomena) may have no  enfluence (influence)on each other and we do not to dare the flu especially when the solar energy is  abnormal.

Secondly, the arguar(arguer) also make a false analogy on the sunspot activity and the exposure to the sun. Even if we assume that the solar energy has negative effect on the flu. It does not mean that we can avoid that enfluence by staying in the shade for there is a complex effect of the heavy sunspot activity, whose solar energy is significantly more than the normal level. We can find out a lot of things that will be beneficial in a certain level and will change to be harmful without limit, such as the alchohal(alcohol), the medicine, etc.(个人觉得这句话对于证明论点的错误不是很大作用) Even every thing should have be conctroled（controlled） in an adaptable level and so does the solar energy. We all know that it(the sunlight,前文似乎并没有提到阳光，这里的it没有指示性) is nessary(necessary) to the growth the plants , to kill  various kinds of virus ,   and can be a effective prevention toward the cancer of the skin. Thus without any complete information on the real change of the flu caused by the prolonged exposure, we can not make sure that whether people will be at risk.


To sum up, the artical is not convincing and logical. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer have to find more evidences to confirm the relation between the sunspot activity and the flu epidemics. Also more research should be taken on the details of the different influence of the sunspot activity.

评价：1、作者貌似没有用WORD的拼音和语法检查功能，导致比较多的拼写错误。
        2、文中只分析了两个点，说服力好像弱了点。建议增加攻击点，比如引起流感的其他可能性因素。
        3、作者的英文功底应该是满不错的，可能是限时影响了水平，希望下次发帖之前检查一下拼写跟表达
   我的英文功底比较差，不知道有没有说错的地方~~欢迎回拍~：）

纳兰馨儿UID: 2437109

不好意思~~~~~错太多了~~~

wy86917UID: 2335014

认真的同学，请每次先用WORD扫一下。。。

lyokaUID: 2451632

The article give the people at particular risk for the flu a suggestion that they should not expose to the sun based on the assumption that heavy sunspot will be the main cause of the disease.（题目中说的应该是prolonged exposure是main cause） To support his scenario, the speaker also provides a record that shows the relation between the flu and the sunspot-activity. This conclusion is not well-reasoned for a few fallacies as follows.

The first point that I cannot agree with the arguer is the hasty generation on the relation between the epidemics and the sunspot activity. What the record tells us is only the coincidence of the two phenomenons without any further information on the cause and effect relationship. (说是coincidence过于绝对化，最好用may be 之类的推测语气) In that case ,we cannot know whether the solar energy is normal or not in the left  295 years. Possibly the frequency of the sunspot activity is much more than that of the flu, therefore there were more years that did not have any flu had still suffered from the sunspot activity. (frequency 用many/less还是high/low不过这个角度很不错) In that case the two phenomenon may have no influence on each other and we do not to dare （do not need to dare 还是do not dare）the flu especially when the solar energy is abnormal.
质疑因果关系

Secondly, the arguer also makes a false analogy on the sunspot activity and the exposure to the sun. （应该不是类比吧，似乎是confuse…with…）Even if we assume that the solar energy has negative effect on the flu. It does not mean that we can avoid that influence by staying in the shade for there is a complex effect of the heavy sunspot activity, whose solar energy is significantly more than the normal level. (前两个应该是从句关系吧,还有最后一个定语从句感觉没有什么必要，对本句没有什么作用) We can find out a lot of things that will be beneficial in a certain level and will change to be harmful without limit, such as the alcohol, the medicine, etc. Even every thing should have been controlled in an adaptable level and so does the solar energy. We all know that it is nessary to the growth the plants, to kill various kinds of virus, and can be an effective prevention toward the cancer of the skin. Thus without any complete information on the real change of the flu caused by the prolonged exposure, we can not make sure that whether people will be at risk.（两个引导词重复，that去掉）
貌似质疑prolonged exposure，因为后面均是针对此论证,如果是这样最好在TS中指明。还有本段的论述可以更加有针对性一些，不要把论题拉太远。

To sum up, the article is not convincing and logical. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer has to find more evidences to confirm the relation between the sunspot activity and the flu epidemics. Also more research should be taken on the details of the different influence of the sunspot activity.
结论段，提出了改进意见
文章整体论证思路很清晰，结构很完整。缺点是质疑的重点prolonged  没有明确指出，还有是第三段如果更紧凑一些会更加切题。J