0910G[North America Flying]Argument105 by fake

fake2009UID: 2631119

题目：ARGUMENT105 - The following appeared in a health newsletter.

"According to a recent study, people with many social ties report catching colds less often than do people with few social ties. Consequently, researchers conclude that having an active social life probably helps strengthen the immune system. The researchers note that catching a cold-one of a family of highly contagious viruses-gives the cold-sufferer temporary immunity to that virus in the future, but not to the many other related viruses. Merely being exposed to a new cold virus, however, is not enough for a person to catch a cold, since a strong immune system can successfully fight off some new viruses. Thus, in order to prevent catching a cold, people should strengthen their immune systems by becoming more active socially."
字数：349
用时：00:26:31

日期：2009-7-17 10:57:12

Before prescribing more social ties to the people, the speaker cites the reason that the people's immune system could become strong. Without examining other possible factors, the argument seems to be unconvincing.

Is the strong immune system is directly formed by more active social life? The regular exercise and health diet which could also lead a strong immune system. Further, the active social life means more active chance to get touch various viruses. In this sense, the more active social life means more cold-sufferers.

We should also doubt that whether the old immune system which is caused by old viruses could fight off the new viruses? The argument fails to explain that. It's true that human body would become strong to some extend after catching a cold, in that the person would become immune to the specific virus. However, the viruses actually change very quickly due to the outside incentives. In this sense, the old immune system cannot fight against the new viruses.

What if we consider the important terminology in the argument? It cites that people with many social ties report catching colds less often that do people with few social ties. It will be wise not to say the word few. The conception of few is quite vague and hard to define.

What's more, the argument provides a recent study, which lacks of the detailed information about the necessary experimental and control. People? Does it mean men, women or children, or all of them? People of different ages have different body condition and different level of immune system. It's hard to be convincing if the argument fails to distinguish the group of people scientifically and properly.

In sum, only if the arguer rule out other possibilities among the people in the study, like other ways that could also strengthen the immune system, we could believe that social ties is the only factor that affects the immune system. Meanwhile, the argument should convince us the cold anti-virus immune system could fight off the new virus, this is the real valuable consequence that lies in more active social ties.

Michael_HanUID: 2656795

Before prescribing more social ties to the people, the speaker cites the reason that the people's immune system could become strong. Without examining other possible factors, the argument seems to be unconvincing.(开头段
写的过于简短了只有31个字，至少要在60左右。其实开头段简短也不是什么错
关键是全文只有350个字左右似乎有点少，可以考虑用下模板。
)
Is the strong immune system is directly formed by more active social life? The regular exercise and health diet which could also lead a strong immune system. Further, the active social life means more active chance to get touch various viruses. In this sense, the more active social life means more cold-sufferers.
强的免疫系统与多社交活动的关系
他因法
锻炼
饮食，
进一步
跟多的机会去接近病毒
We should also doubt that whether the old immune system which is caused by old viruses could fight off the new viruses? The argument fails to explain that. It's true that human body would become strong to some extend after catching a cold, in that the person would become immune to the specific virus. However, the viruses actually change very quickly due to the outside incentives. In this sense, the old immune system cannot fight against the new viruses.
被一种病毒刺激后增强的免疫系统
是否可以抵抗其他病毒
What if we consider the important terminology in the argument? It cites that people with many social ties report catching colds less often that do people with few social ties. It will be wise not to say the word few. The conception of few is quite vague and hard to define.
用语错误

What's more, the argument provides a recent study, which lacks of the detailed information about the necessary experimental and control. People? Does it mean men, women or children, or all of them? People of different ages have different body condition and different level of immune system. It's hard to be convincing if the argument fails to distinguish the group of people scientifically and properly.
Study 前提攻击
缺少细节信息
In sum, only if the arguer rule out other possibilities among the people in the study, like other ways that could also strengthen the immune system, we could believe that social ties is the only factor that affects the immune system. Meanwhile, the argument should convince us the cold anti-virus immune system could fight off the new virus, this is the real valuable consequence that lies in more active social ties.
结构
1. 强的免疫系统与多社交活动的关系
他因法
锻炼
饮食，
进一步
更多的机会去接近病毒

2 被一种病毒刺激后增强的免疫系统
是否可以抵抗其他病毒

3 argu中用语错误
few

4
前提攻击
study的 people

首先
你重要的攻击点集中在了文章的study
1强的免疫系统与多社交活动的关系
3 argu中用语错误
few
4
前提攻击
study的 people
咱们先不说你的攻击选择是否得体（涉及一些关于前提攻击的争论）
就说这3个攻击的位置

正常逻辑来说
你应该先攻击4 因为这是study的样本
其次是 few
是study的出的直接结论
（people with many social ties report catching colds less often than do people with few social ties）
最后是 1强的免疫系统与多社交活动的关系
是作者的推论

但是你似乎仅仅是按照文章错误出现的书序进行攻击
逻辑思路基本是反了

总体评价：
语言没的说
在攻击选择方面
我觉得fake应该下些功夫在这里，我觉得整体的文章错误选择似乎有较大问题，这篇文章错误不算少，在5个左右
选择3个就可以写，但是似乎你挑选的错误有点个性了。。。也就是说有点走歪了，大家都知道在A中应该说是没有创新的，至少在错误的发现方面是没有的，大家可写的错误就是那么几种，基本上被发掘的差不多了，就算是要自己去找些提纲中没有的，我觉得那样的错误也是少数，大部分错误还是比较常见的。

结构方面：
由于攻击的选取可能有些问题，文章整体的结构似乎也有问题
，没有一个很好的逻辑思路。基本上是分散的点的攻击，而且这些点的攻击也存在因果先后的问题。需要重点调整。

综合
大家应该注意 A的特点是与 I不同的
思路不同
要求也不同
应该对A有一定的重视，重视他的攻击取舍
和
行文整体思路结构。

421899282UID: 2595732

而且，我觉得，文中已经明确指出，temporary immunity to that virus in the future, but not to the many other related viruses. 也就是说不会对新病毒有免疫力的。