argument59 流感的原因．有拍定回，(sally)

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

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."

[翻译]
根据现有的医疗记录，过去300年中最严重的六次世界范围的流感大流行分别发生于1729，1830，1918，1957和1977。这些都是太阳黑子活动剧烈的年份，即：地球所接收的太阳能比平常年份多的多的年份。因此，那些特别易患流感的人群应该避免长时间暴露于日光下。

提纲
1，        过去300年中的6年黑子活跃，流感也最厉害。但这仅仅是现有的医疗记录，也许在其他没有记载的年份（300年前）黑子并不活跃但是流感比这六年还猖獗，也有可能在其他的黑子活跃年份没有医疗记录，但是流感却异常低
2，        而且，黑子活跃流感高就说明黑子活跃是引起流感的原因吗？也许这仅仅是一个巧合，而真正的原因是黑子活跃引起的天气变化。人与人之间的传染，医疗条件不足，健康意识差
3，        流感的高危人群是哪些人？如果是基因问题，拒绝阳光有作用吗？prolonged是个模糊的概念，到底是多久？也许适当的日照反倒对流感有好处

正文
At first glance, the argument seems to be plausible in light of some premises the arguer presents to back up his ratiocination, such as the statistical medical records of six years in the past 300 year, these representative years’ character of sunpot activity and so forth. unpon a closer scrutiny, however, some fallacies hidden in the logic will betray the author’s reasoning in that he fails to take into calculation other concomitant factors which may bear the immediate interest to the underlying occasion of rampancy of flu.

To begin with, it seems logical to deduce that sunspot activity is the real culprit of flu by citing the report that six worst worldwide flu epidemics during the past 300 years occurred six years with heavy sunspot activity. Nevertheless, this report is only the available one. Thus, we cannot exclude the possible condition of other years which are not listed in available medical reports. Consider, maybe sunspot activity was very slight in remote years when record is not feasible,yet flu epidemics were worse than in the recorded six years. The possibility also exists that there are no medical recordes for other years with sunsport activity,while in the actual condition there’s no flu sympton. If the aforementioned assumptions turn out to be the case, it is clear that there lies no causality between solar energy and flu.

Deep down, concession granted that flu epidemics all occurred in years with heavy sunspot activity, we still cannot deny that there also lies the likelihood that flu epidemics prevailing in sunspot active years is only a coincidence. As a matter of fact, probably, the veracious reason for flu is the abnormal climate caused by solar energe. It’s also possible that infection between people, people’s low healty consciousness or low-grade medical facilities that have the important bearing on flu rather than solar energe featuring in sunspot active years. Without rulling out all these alternatives, it’s too rush to draw the conclusion that flu epidemics are begeted by solar energe.

When it comes to the conclusion. We still have sound reason to doubt its validity in that the developer fails to provide us with the concrete information about the potential flu patients and the exact meaning of “prolonged”. Let’s make a hypothesis here, if people at particular risk for the flu bear flu-attached gene, it’s almost impossible to prevent the disease by avoiding exposure to the sun, which is only a postnatal factor and therefore cannt cure the inborn flu. In addition, “prolonged exposure to the sun” is so ambiguous a defination that it could not be adopted as a measure to guard against flu. How long “prolonged” really is? 1year? 10 days? or just 1 hour? In most events, exposur to the sun for proper time length is conducive to curing flu. Consequently, the conclusion that prolonged exposure to the sun should be avoided in order to prevent fue is flawed.

To sum up, having viewed all the aspects above, we do not feel difficult to draw the conclusion that the argument is neither convincing or persuasive. In order to conduct a compelling ratiocination, it’s highly recommended that the writer exam the issue in an all-rounded perspective. He should only take into consideration the available reports, but also other possible alternatives that would also result in flu.

[ 本帖最后由 sallyxindu 于 2006-2-5 01:52 编辑 ]

copia_cloudUID: 2182278

At first glance, the argument seems to be plausible in light of some premises the arguer presents to back up his ratiocination, such as the statistical medical records of six years in the past 300 year, these representative years’ character of sunpot activity and so forth. unpon a closer scrutiny, however, some fallacies hidden in the logic will betray the author’s reasoning in that he fails to take into calculation other concomitant factors which may bear the immediate interest to the underlying occasion of rampancy of flu.感觉显得稍微有点长，呵呵，用词是很不错的，学习

To begin with, it seems logical to deduce that sunspot activity is the real culprit of flu by citing the report that six worst worldwide flu epidemics during the past 300 years occurred six years with heavy sunspot activity. Nevertheless, this report is only the available one. Thus, we cannot exclude the possible condition of other years which are not listed in available medical reports. Consider, maybe sunspot activity was very slight in remote years when record is not feasible,yet flu epidemics were worse than in the recorded six years.感觉和题目说的worst worldwide flu epidemics 有点冲突，个人感觉可以换个例子 The possibility also exists that there are no medical recordes for other years with sunsport activity,while in the actual condition there’s no flu sympton.symptom?If the aforementioned assumptions turn out to be the case, it is clear that there lies no causality between solar energy and flu.基本都说到了，但好象不是很透彻，其他帖子上有人写的很好，我也是在学习中

Deep down, concession granted that flu epidemics all occurred in years with heavy sunspot activity, we still cannot deny that there also lies the likelihood that flu epidemics prevailing in sunspot active years is only a coincidence. As a matter of fact, probably, the veracious reason for flu is the abnormal climate caused by solar energe. It’s also possible that infection between people, people’s low healty consciousness or low-grade medical facilities that have the important bearing on flu rather than solar energe featuring in sunspot active years. Without rulling out all these alternatives, it’s too rush to draw the conclusion that flu epidemics are begeted by solar energe.有几个单词拼错了ruling,energy等，其他原因还可以说说气温波动什么的。另外说其他原因的时候对其他原因稍微阐述一下就更好了，但我自己现在也是举了其他原因后想解释一下感觉又表达不出来，惭愧

When it comes to the conclusion. We still have sound reason to doubt its validity in that the developer fails to provide us with the concrete information about the potential flu patients and the exact meaning of “prolonged”. Let’s make a hypothesis here, if people at particular risk for the flu bear flu-attached gene, it’s almost impossible to prevent the disease by avoiding exposure to the sun, which is only a postnatal factor and therefore cannt cure the inborn flu.基因缺陷的在紫外线这个诱因下也可以发病啊，避免过度紫外光照射也可以减少发病的危险性。我的思路刚好反了，现在有点晕了 In addition, “prolonged exposure to the sun” is so ambiguous a defination that it could not be adopted as a measure to guard against flu. How long “prolonged” really is? 1year? 10 days? or just 1 hour? In most events, exposur to the sun for proper time length is conducive to curing flu. Consequently, the conclusion that prolonged exposure to the sun should be avoided in order to prevent fue is flawed.两个概念不清的地方都说到了

To sum up, having viewed all the aspects above, we do not feel difficult to draw the conclusion that the argument is neither convincing or persuasive. In order to conduct a compelling ratiocination, it’s highly recommended that the writer exam the issue in an all-rounded perspective. He should only take into consideration the available reports, but also other possible alternatives that would also result in flu.
感觉楼主写的不错，3个方面都批到了，很多用词都比较有特色，学习ing呵呵。感觉要是把因果关系批的更狠一点就好了。我也写了篇，严重超时感觉还很烂楼主有空拍拍。https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D2

[ 本帖最后由 copia_cloud 于 2006-2-5 13:54 编辑 ]

xinxinzi0719UID: 182812

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."

[翻译]
根据现有的医疗记录，过去300年中最严重的六次世界范围的流感大流行分别发生于1729，1830，1918，1957和1977。这些都是太阳黑子活动剧烈的年份，即：地球所接收的太阳能比平常年份多的多的年份。因此，那些特别易患流感的人群应该避免长时间暴露于日光下。

提纲
1，        过去300年中的6年黑子活跃，流感也最厉害。但这仅仅是现有的医疗记录，也许在其他没有记载的年份（300年前）黑子并不活跃但是流感比这六年还猖獗，也有可能在其他的黑子活跃年份没有医疗记录，但是流感却异常低
2，        而且，黑子活跃流感高就说明黑子活跃是引起流感的原因吗？也许这仅仅是一个巧合，而真正的原因是黑子活跃引起的天气变化。人与人之间的传染，医疗条件不足，健康意识差
3，        流感的高危人群是哪些人？如果是基因问题，拒绝阳光有作用吗？prolonged是个模糊的概念，到底是多久？也许适当的日照反倒对流感有好处

正文
At first glance, the argument seems to be plausible in light of some premises the arguer presents to back up his ratiocination, such as the statistical medical records of six years in the past 300 year, these representative years' character of sunspot activity and so forth. Upon a closer scrutiny, however, some fallacies hidden in the logic will betray the author's reasoning in that he fails to take into calculation （account of ）other concomitant factors which may bear the immediate interest to the underlying occasion of rampancy of flu.

To begin with, it seems logical to deduce that sunspot activity is the real culprit of flu by citing the report that six worst worldwide flu epidemics during the past 300 years occurred six years with heavy sunspot activity. Nevertheless, this report is only the available one. Thus, we cannot exclude the possible condition of other years which are not listed in available medical reports. Consider, maybe sunspot activity was very slight in remote years when record is not feasible, yet flu epidemics were worse than in the recorded six years. The possibility also exists that there are no medical records for other years with sunspot activity, while in the actual condition there's no flu symptom. If the aforementioned assumptions turn out to be the case, it is clear that there lies no causality between solar energy and flu.

Deep down, concession granted that flu epidemics all occurred in years with heavy sunspot activity; we still cannot deny that there also lies(lays) the likelihood that flu epidemics prevailing in sunspot active years is only a coincidence. As a matter of fact, probably, the veracious reason for flu is the abnormal climate caused by solar energy. It's also possible that infection between people, people's low healthy consciousness or low-grade medical facilities that have the important bearing on flu rather than solar energy featuring in sunspot active years. Without ruling out all these alternatives, it's too rush to draw the conclusion that flu epidemics are begeted (begot 是过去式)by solar energe.

When it comes to the conclusion, we still have sound reason to doubt its validity in that the developer(developer 什么意思呢)  fails to provide us with the concrete information about the potential flu patients and the exact meaning of "prolonged". Let's make a hypothesis here, if people at particular risk for the flu bear flu-attached gene, it's almost impossible to prevent the disease by avoiding exposure to the sun, which is only a postnatal factor and therefore cannot cure the inborn flu. In addition, "prolonged exposure to the sun" is so ambiguous a definition that it could not be adopted as a measure to guard against flu. How long "prolonged" really is? 1year? 10 days? or just 1 hour? In most events, exposure to the sun for proper time length is conducive to curing flu. Consequently, the conclusion that prolonged exposure to the sun should be avoided in order to prevent flu is flawed.（sally 的最后一点总是让我想不到 分析得很好）
To sum up, having viewed all the aspects above, we do not feel difficult to draw the conclusion that the argument is neither convincing or（neither nor 句型） persuasive. In order to conduct a compelling ratiocination, it's highly recommended that the writer exam the issue in an all-rounded perspective. He should only take into consideration the available reports, but also other possible alternatives that would also result in flu.
觉得sally 的用词很不错 有好多gre的单词阿 活学活用 佩服佩服