argument59 [同主题] &leongfish和紫电看过来

cuteUID: 2152397

THe notion that people at particular risk for the flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the sun seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion.After all,six worst worldwide flu epidemics during the past 300 years occurred in 1729,1830,1918,1957,1968,and 1977,which are years with heavy sunspot activity.However,the conclusion that people at particular risk for the flu should therefore avoid  prolonged exposure to the Sun may mask other (and potentially more indespensable )causes of flu and may inspire people to over emphasize psychologically and financially on the protection from the sun.

First of all,as mentioned in the argument,six worst worldwide flu epidemics during the past 300 years in which sunspot act seversely.Six single years is not convincing statistics to support the conlusion since so long a history of flu is that obviously only six years can't back up.Also,the argument does not provide statistics of the small possiblities of catching flu in the years of heavy sunspot activity which may threaen the confidence of the argument.

The argument above is also damaged by the fact that it does not take into account the other distinctive causes that may induce flu.Flu, like most illnesses,originate from diverse causes which can't simply attribute to one single sunspot activity.According to varieties of thorough surveys,flu can be caught for such causes as contagion among people,lack of nutrition due to wars or
social turbulence,and possibly the change of weather.

Finally, there is no precise explanation to what is prolonged exposure to the Sun.THe arguer does not point out how long a period the prolonged exposure is and the degree of prolong still needs to be discussed.In addition, sunshine,if received in an appropriate amount, undeniably benefit people for the ultraviolet rays in the sunlight have the ability to kill bacteria.

The argument for the connection between sunspot activity and rate of infection of flu based on the available medical records could provide important information and sound like reasonable.Before conclusions about the measure that people at particular risk for the flu are drawed,more convinced evidence are needed.Nevertheless,avoiding exposure from sunshine blindly is as hapardous as infecting a flu.

[ 本帖最后由 cute 于 2006-2-7 12:19 编辑 ]

leongfishUID: 2176854

take seat

leongfishUID: 2176854

THe notion that people at particular risk for the flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the sun seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion.After all,six worst worldwide flu epidemics during the past 300 years occurred in 1729,1830,1918,1957,1968,and 1977,which are years with heavy sunspot activity.However,the conclusion that people at particular risk for the flu should therefore avoid  prolonged exposure to the Sun may mask other (and potentially more indespensable )causes of flu and may inspire people to over emphasize psychologically and financially on the protection from the sun.

First of all,as mentioned in the argument,six worst worldwide flu epidemics during the past 300 years in which sunspot act severselyseverely. Six single years is not convincing statistics to support the conlusion since so long a history of flu is that obviously only six years can't back up这句话不怎么好懂.Also,the argument does not provide statistics of the small possiblities of catching flu in the years of heavy sunspot activity什么意思？  which may threaen the confidence of the argument.

The argument above is also damaged by the fact that it does not take into account the other distinctive causes that may induce flu.Flu, like most illnesses,originate from diverse causes which can't simply attribute to one single重复了 sunspot activity.According to varieties of thorough surveys,flu can be caught for such causes as contagion among people,lack of nutrition due to wars or social turbulence,and possibly the change of weather.

Finally, there is no precise explanation to what is prolonged exposure to the Sun.THe arguer does not point out how long a period the prolongedhow long is the period of the exposure is and the degree of prolongexposure still needs to be discussed.In addition, sunshine,if received in an appropriate amount, undeniably benefit people for the ultraviolet rays in the sunlight have the ability to kill bacteria.

The argument for the connection between sunspot activity and rate of infection of flu based on the available medical records could provide important information and sound like reasonable.Before conclusions about the measure that people at particular risk for the flu are drawed,more convinced evidence are needed.Nevertheless,avoiding exposure from sunshine blindly is as hapardous as infecting a flu.
感觉主体部分论证该再丰满点，还有注意一些句子的表达

cuteUID: 2152397

Six single years is not convincing statistics to support the conlusion since so long a history of flu is that obviously only six years can't back up这句话不怎么好懂.
意思就是六年的统计数据，对于有很长历史的流感历史来说，太短了，怎么改改通顺？


Also,the argument does not provide statistics of the small possiblities of catching flu in the years of heavy sunspot activity什么意思？  
意思是文中没有提供在太阳黑子活跃年份里 流感发生率小的例子。怎么改？

感觉主体部分论证该再丰满点，还有注意一些句子的表达  
能具体谈谈如何丰满么？
另外，我的句子是不是读得别扭？我经常看别人的句子别扭