Argument59 第二篇 一小时十分钟 339字 请大家拍 必回拍(同主题写作第二期)

exp03UID: 2158827

59The 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."

The conclusion in this argument is that people at particular risk for the flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the sun. In support of this prediction, the arguer claims that some worst worldwide flu occurred in the years when sunspot acted heavily during last three hundred years. This argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions.

The major problem with this argument is that the arguer overemphasizes the importance of the relationship between the solar energy with the flu epidemics. Although it is true that some records mentioned in several heavy sunspot activity years occurring bad flu epidemics 改为mentioned bad 替换为disastrousflu epidemics occurred in several heavy sunspot activity, besides more years in the periods of heavy sunspot activities do may not have such diseases. Besides, other factors may influence people’s health in those times such as worldwide cold weather or the war etc. From the statistics quoted in the argument, however, we find no sign of such procedures for normal situation, and have good reasons to doubt if the sample is representative enough to reflect the general attitudes of all heavy sunspot activities.

Another point worth considering is that the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. Common sense tells us that the bacteria can be killed by ultraviolet radiation from the sun ray, therefore the arguer’s conclusion that people at particular risk for the flu have to avoid prolonged exposure to the sun would be seriously weakened. What is more, we are told nothing about the way 加to avoid the sun in normal years can help the patients 去掉  in the evidence and how well it changes the patients’ bad situation.

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to demonstrate that the sun ray is indeed bad for every patients. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to produce more evidence concerning the direct relative facts in the history records and how the avoid way 改为arguer's method can make better situations for controlling the illness.  

Argument第二篇 一小时十分钟 339字 请大家拍 必回拍

[ 本帖最后由 exp03 于 2006-2-3 19:55 编辑 ]

savagettUID: 2134686

The conclusion in this argument is that people at particular risk for the flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the sun.(作者的结论) In support of this prediction, the arguer claims that some worst worldwide flu occurred in the years when sunspot acted heavily during last three hundred years. （论据）This argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions.

The major problem with this argument is that the arguer overemphasizes the importance of the relationship between the solar energy with the flu epidemics. Although it is true that some records mentioned in several heavy sunspot activity years occurring bad flu epidemics(为什么要用动名词呢?ai..我觉得mentioned bad flu epidemics occurred in several heavy sunspot activity) , more years in the periods of heavy sunspot activities do not have such diseases(这里有个transition比较好吧,是想说个转折的意思?). Besides, other factors may influence people’s healthy(health) in those times such as worldwide cold weather or the war etc. From the statistics quoted in the argument, however, we find no sign of such procedures for normal situation, and have good reason（reasons） to doubt if the sample is representative enough to reflect the general attitudes of all heavy sunspot activities.
反驳论据中的推理
论证中的用词很老练呢,一句接着一句,完全看不出才写了第2篇,不过如果多点自己的驳论的成分会更好,少点套用的总结语

Another point worth considering is that the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. Common sense tells us that the bacteria can be killed by ultraviolet radiation from the sun ray, therefore the arguer’s conclusion that people at particular risk for the flu have to avoid prolonged exposure to the sun would be seriously weakened. What is more, we are told nothing about the way avoid(to avoid) the sun in normal years can help the patients in the evidence and how well it changes the patients’ situation.
这最后的半句,说的是什么意思呢?我有点没看明白
To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to demonstrate that the sun ray is indeed bad for every patients. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to produce more evidence concerning the direct relative facts in the history records and how the avoid way(这个说法有点怪呢,how to find a way) can make better situations for controlling the illness.  

第二篇,已经很好了,而且我都看不出什么语法错误的…可能我太弱了.
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1
同主题的,请多多关照.

lincoln_8513UID: 2132238

The conclusion in this argument is that people at particular risk for the flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the sun. In support of this prediction, the arguer claims that some worst worldwide flu occurred in the years when sunspot acted heavily during last three hundred years. (这里或者后面插入一个转折连词比较好)This argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions.

The major problem with this argument is that the arguer overemphasizes the importance of the relationship between the solar energy with the flu epidemics. Although it is true that some records mentioned that bad(disastrous) flu epidemics occurred with heavy sunspot activity,  more years in the periods of heavy sunspot activities do(may) not have such diseases.(这个句子前面用了although,那么后面是主句,主句就一定要表达清楚) Besides, other factors may influence people’s health in those times such as worldwide cold weather or the war etc. From the statistics quoted in the argument, however, we find no sign of such procedures for normal situation, and have good reasons to doubt if the sample is representative enough to reflect the general attitudes of all heavy sunspot activities.

Another point worth considering is that the conclusion lacks credibility(写的太简略,导致worth considering 和lack credibility重复) because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. Common sense tells us that the bacteria can be killed by ultraviolet radiation from(in) the sun ray(light), therefore the arguer’s conclusion that people at particular risk for the flu have to avoid prolonged exposure to the sun would be seriously weakened. What is more, we are told nothing about the way(how) to avoid the sun in normal years which can help the patients and how well it changes(will change) the patients’ bad situation.(没有收回来,已经谈到作者所给信息不全,应该点名后果, I am not convinced that...)

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to demonstrate that the sun light is indeed bad for every(all) patients. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to produce(provide) more evidence concerning the direct relative facts in the history records and how the arguer's method can make better situations for controlling the illness.(help control the flu epidemic better)


攻击基本上到位了,但展开的不很够
其实一段就攻一点,中间写成三段比较好
另外,某些语言显的简单了点,可以多看些范文,拉长自己的句子,多点变化


https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1
我的,欢迎拍砖:)

[ 本帖最后由 lincoln_8513 于 2006-2-3 19:07 编辑 ]

yogurt4UID: 198389

正在看,插花一句,下次修改后的文章另放一楼,然后在一楼说一声就可以了
现在一楼的文章有点花@@
红色的besides是啥?

[ 本帖最后由 yogurt4 于 2006-2-3 23:37 编辑 ]

exp03UID: 2158827

呵呵 了解 谢谢版主

yogurt4UID: 198389

http://edu.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... e%3D1#pid1768043431
19楼