argument59 飞跃dreams小组第二次作业

yolanda419UID: 2420192

ARGUMNET59. The 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."


          字数：385               不限时

   This article concludes that people at particular risk for flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun. To justify this conclusion, the article’s author notes that the years in which the six worst worldwide flu epidemics occurred during the past 300 years are those with heavy sunspot activity. In addition, the author assumes people are risk for flu when they receive more solar energy. I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.

     First, there is not any medical research shows that whoever prolonged exposure to the sun is easier to suffer flu. On the contrary, doctors often advice their patients to go out and bask, and we all know that the sun light can promote the absorption of Vit D, which is helpful to the absorption of Ca. Moreover, the ultraviolet light from the sun can kill the bacterium on our skin. Thus it can be seen that the article’s conclusion departs from our real life. To support the conclusion, the author should cite at least one sound research basis on control experiment.  

    Secondly, the correlation between the worldwide flu epidemics and sunspot activity is flabby. Perhaps, the sunspot activity not only occurred in 1729, 1830, 1918, 1957, 1968, and 1977 during the past 300 years. On the other hand, there are other reasons caused the flu epidemics, such as war, natural-ties, change of living environment etc. Without ruling out other possible reasons for the six worst worldwide flu epidemics, the conclusion remains unconvincing.

   Assuming the flu epidemics is due to the sunspot activity, it is little indication that receiving significantly more solar energy directly results in flu epidemic. As the sunspot activity has closed relation with hard raining, temperature anomaly, communication-interfered and so on. It is entirely possible that the changed-climate accelerated the spread of flu virus. If it is so, prevent from exposing to the sun could not promise an absence of flu-suffer.

   In sum, the conclusion relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the conclusion the author must ruling out other reasonable explanations for flu epidemic, at the same time, provide clear evidence to confirm the correlation between flu epidemic and sunspot activity, details about flu epidemic occurred and period of sunspot activity. Lacking such evidence, this article’s conclusion is poor persuasion to me

neomaverickUID: 2449179

   This article concludes that people at particular risk for flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun. To justify this conclusion, the article’s author notes that the years in which the six worst worldwide flu epidemics occurred during the past 300 years are those with heavy sunspot activity. In addition, the author assumes people are risk(risking) for (being infected by) flu when they receive more solar energy. I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.     First, there is not any medical research shows that whoever prolonged exposure to the sun is easier to suffer flu. On the contrary( To the contrary), doctors often advice their patients to go out and bask(have a sunbath), and we all know that the sun light can promote the absorption of Vit D, which is helpful to the absorption of Ca (Calcium).( useless in supporting your view by mention sunlight’s function in absorption vitamin D) Moreover, the ultraviolet light from the sun can kill the bacterium on our skin. Thus it can be seen that the article’s conclusion departs from our real life. To support the conclusion, the author should cite at least one sound research basis on(based on) control experiment.      Secondly, the correlation between the worldwide flu epidemics and sunspot activity is flabby. Perhaps, the sunspot activity not only occurred in 1729, 1830, 1918, 1957, 1968, and 1977 during the past 300 years. On the other hand, there are(may be) other reasons caused (which may cause) the flu epidemics, such as war, natural-ties(I’m sorry, but what’s that?), change of living environment etc. Without ruling out other possible reasons for the six worst worldwide flu epidemics, the conclusion remains unconvincing.   (Finally,) Assuming the flu epidemics is due to the sunspot activity, it is little indication that receiving significantly more solar energy directly results in flu epidemic. As the sunspot activity has closed(close) relation(relationship) with hard raining, temperature anomaly, communication-interfered( what’s that?) and so on. (I guess these are your assumption, better use “it is likely that sunspot activity may cause abnormal climate and certain ecology disaster,”) It is entirely possible that the changed-climate accelerated the spread of flu virus. If it is so, prevent from( to stop) (over) exposing to the sun could not promise an absence of flu-suffer.(could not guarantee absence from flu. )   In sum, the conclusion relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the conclusion the author must ruling out other reasonable explanations for flu epidemic, at the same time, provide clear evidence to confirm the correlation between flu epidemic and sunspot activity, details about flu epidemic occurred and period of sunspot activity.( don’t understand) Lacking such evidence, this article’s conclusion is poor persuasion to me.

Suggestions
1.      I’m glad to see your enormous improvement in this article, compared with your earlier ones, although some grammar mistakes still exist.
2.      I’d like to comment on your logic of reasoning this time. In my opinion, your first view could be combined with your last view, as a result, the logic of the whole article is like this:
1.      sunspot activity is not equally to flu for in other years there may be sunspot activities too.
2.      even sunspot activity is cause of flu, no evidence shows that no other factors contribute to flu.
3.      even sunspot activity causes flu alone, does avoiding sunlight work in prevent from flu?