Argument59 第二期的同主题互拍，大家帮我看看哟

leedgenUID：160823

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.'
提纲：
1．首先，即使那6个年份发生了严重的世界范围的flu，并且确实正好那些年份有heavy sunspot activity，但是那时的太阳黑子运动是不是最严重的几年呢，可能在其他没有发生严重流感的年份太阳黑子运动还要更加活跃，仅6个年份的数据不足以说明flu和sunspot activity之间的关系。

2．其次，在那6个年份里，很有可能有其他因素导致的严重的流感，比如新的流感病菌的出现，剧烈的气温变换等等。例外，人与人之间的传染可能导致流感的范围扩大，以至于更加严重，而不是由于the Earth接收到了更多的能量。

3．最后的建议也没有任何理由，长时间晒太阳会得流感吗？这没有任何可靠的依据。作者武断地把结论建立在这种巧合上，这很不合理。因为这两个现象不能充分地说明flu与sunspot activity有着任何联系。目前，flu和sunspot activity的关系没有任何solid科学依据。事实上，医生经常建议病人多晒太阳来促进健康，而作者建议避免prolonged exposure to the Sun，那多久就算是长时间晒太阳了呢？作者没有提，简单这么一说，可能就引起病人的无所依从。

In this article, the author presents us the findings from the available medical records and the fact with respect to sunspot activity. Then the author unfairly assumes that heavy sunspot activity will lead to high risk in flu, which is apparently open to doubt in several respects.

To begin with, the author cites the fact that six severe flu epidemics happened during the last 300 years and in these six years did sunspot activity happen to be heavy, which in fact provides little credible support to the final conclusion. There is little information concerning the degree of sunspot activity in other yeas when there was no worst worldwide flu epidemics, which is highly needed to access the possible relation between flu and sunspot activity. It is very possible that sunspot activity is much heavier in those years when no severe flu epidemics happened. Lacking such critical evidence, it is impossible to establish a link from flu to sunspot activity. Besides, the six years’ information is rarely sufficient to access a persuasive conclusion, before which more solid information about the flu and sunspot activity in other years is required.

Next, even if we concede that the worst flu epidemics happened in the six years when sunspot activity were really heavier than in other years, there is no guarantee that heavy sunspot activities result in flu epidemics. It is entirely possible that other factors lead to those worst flu epidemics, like wars, new-born flu fungus, and it is not the more energy the Earth received that give rise to the flu epidemics. Without sweeping out these and other possibilities, it is quite unfair to draw the conclusion that sunspot activity takes the most responsibility for the flu epidemics.

Moreover, the author groundlessly suggests that people should avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun, which is merely based on the two separated facts mentioned in the argument. Firstly, whether long exposure to the Sun does cause flu is unwarranted as it stands. There is no solid scientific evidence that can provide much support to this conclusion. Actually from my own experience, doctors often tell their patients to get enough sun shine to help their recovery. Secondly, the author does not provide the criteria when it comes to measure the proper exposure time to the Sun so that people will be confused when to stop or continue exposure to the Sun.

On balance, this article suffers several main fallacies as I mentioned above. To strengthen the suggestion, the author needs provide more concrete information with regard to the flu epidemics and sunspot activity, otherwise, it is unwise and undue to make rash conclusion on avoiding prolonged exposure to the Sun.

谢谢大家

[ 本帖最后由 leedgen 于 2006-2-11 09:30 编辑 ]

leedgenUID：160823

up

leedgenUID：160823

再来