argument59 [Jet小组]第十五次作业

x6xUID: 2180130

Argument 59.

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."

WORDS:455  Untimed  DATE:2008/03/04

The author of the article in the health section of a newspaper asserts that people at particular risk for the flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun. At first glance, this opinion seems to be somewhat convincing, but further reflections tell me that I cannot agree with it for the following reasons.

To begin with, there exist a statistic fallacy ? except for the years when the six worst worldwide flu apidemics, is there any other years with heavy sunspot activity? If the answer is yes and in those years, no worldwide flu appears, how can we safely believe the causal relationship between sunspot activity and worldwide flu? Causal relationship between them exits in condition that not only whenever the worldwide flu breaks out, the sunspot activity must appear, but also everytime the sunspot activity appears, the worldwide flu will break out. Since evidences to prove existance of the prediction are not available, the conclusion of the satistic result is not persuasive.

In addition, evidences are missed when we consider exposure to the Sun will cause worldwide flu. Firstly, the author doesn't exclude other factors which may cause the flu as well. Transferations of certain bacterials, reactions to some geography phenomenones and other unclear factors may exist in sevaral of the six years and bring about those worldwide flus. Secondly, even if the origin cause is sunspot activities, exposure to the Sun is not necessary to be seen as the main cause of the worldwide flu. The sunspot activity is possible to contribute to more than large amount of energy. In fact, it can result in frequencial changes of climates, which is more likey to cause flus. Therefore, it is not accurate to put all responsibilities of worldwide flu to the increasing amount of solar energy. Then avoiding prolonged exposure to the Sun seems to be unnecessary.

What’s more, the author seems easy to get a hasty conclusion. Let us suppose it is just exposure to the Sun that causes worldwide flus. However, as indicated by medical science, exposure to the Sun have does good to the health of people in many aspects. Facing this situation, an objective attitude is to campare advantanges with disadvantages and make a blance, instead of asserting to avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun at once without further consideration.

In sum, the author’s claim is not as persuasive as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, he/she would have to show stronger evidence in proving the causal relationship between sunspot activity and worldwide flu. Additionally, the president must make readers assure that it has more advantages than disadvantages to avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun. Only with more convincing evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.