argument59 同题第二期

rosewmUID: 2183870

In this argument the author recommends that people should avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun in order to decrease the risk for flu. To support this recommendation, the arguer cites the fact that the six worst worldwide flu epidemics during the past 300 years all occurred in the years with heavy sunspot activity. Close scrutiny of it, however, reveals that it does not lend credible support to the recommendation.

First, only 300 years do not necessarily indicate the entire history of flu epidemics. Perhaps flu epidemics occurred throughout the world before 300 years, however people of that time did not preserved the records because the poor condition of communication or lacking evidence of flu epidemics. Or perhaps the doctors had no ability to diagnose this kind of pestilence as flu 300 years ago. In short, the reason the arguer cited the 300 years is too short to generalize the history of worldwide flu epidemics to farther support to the recommendation.

Secondly, in the argument over flu epidemics, one important fact that the medical information which the years with heavy sunspot activity except the six years is generally overlooked. If the risk of flu is equal to the average level in those years, furthermore if the prevalence is unwonted low than other years, we have to doubt the association between sunspot activity and flu epidemics.

Thirdly, even if the worldwide flu will occurs in the heavy sunspot activity year, the arguer assumes further that people prolonged exposure to the sun will result in flu. Thus the arguer fails to consider and rule out other factors that might account for prevalence of flu. Nowadays, medical experts assert that the flu virus transfer by air. When the flu gene changed, the majority of people who do not have the antibody of the new type virus would be attacked. Moreover, perhaps the awful weather because of the phenomenon of heavy sunspot activity leads to flu prevalence. Any further linkage the two phenomena about exposure under the sunlight and epidemics of flu require more evidence and are not justified by the data so far available.

Finally, even assuming that people prolonged exposure to the Sun might at high risk for the flu. The arguer fails to consider the normal exposure time. Common sense tells us that suitable exposure to the sun is benefit to human health.

In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation the arguer must provide dear evidence that other facts affecting prevalence of flu epidemics.