Argument59 （12月作文高强组——好好学习，天天作文）

一月一号UID: 2148376

1.      没有证据证明感冒与太阳黑子运动有关
2.       即使有关，也未必与吸收黑多能量有关
3.       即便感冒与能量多有关，减少长时间暴露在太阳下也未必有用




TOPIC: ARGUMENT59 - 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: 391          TIME: 0:40:00          DATE: 2006-12-7

In the argument above, the author recommends that people at flu risk should prolonged exposure to the Sun. After all, as we know, the long time exposure at the Sun do some harm to human's health. However, the arguer cannot convince us by only providing the coincidence of the flu and the sunspot activity as evidence of his recommendation.

First, this argument suffers a severe fallacy of lacking enough evidence of the correlation of the flu and the sun spot activity. Though the six worst worldwide flu epidemics in the past 300 years is when there was heavy sunspot activity, there is any scientific and concrete information to demonstrate the correlation of these two events. It is likely that some sunspot high activity years when there was no any worldwide flu epidemic at all.  Thus, we cannot conclude that some certain correlations exist between the worldwide flu and the sunspot activity.

Even assuming that this correlation exists, there is no guarantee that the function of this correlation is the significant more solar energy received by Earth. We may figure that it is the weather change that caused by the heavy sunspot activity do trigger the worldwide flu epidemic.  Without any scientific research and explanation that can points out what the correlation between the flu and the sunspot activity is, the recommendations the author makes later would be of little avail.

Supposing the more solar energy received be Earth is the culprit for the worst worldwide epidemics, the effects of recommendation, which suggests people at flu risk  avoiding prolonged exposure to the Sun , are beyond question. We even do not know what energy received from the Sun do harm to our health and how they cause the worldwide flu; how can we expect to know that the merely avoiding prolonged exposure to the Sun can decrease our risk of getting flu? It is likely that the energy caused the terrible worldwide flu epidemic cannot be reflected by ordinary clothes or even buildings. Thus just avoiding exposure to the Sun would be no effects. Further, as we know, the sun shine do have some therapeutic effects for some diseases. It may even cause more severe illnesses if we do not expose to the Sun.

In sum, this recommendation fails provide sufficient evidence to convince us the effects of avoiding prolonged exposure and the correlation with the infection of flu epidemic. The author should provide more detailed materials about the concrete correlation between the flu epidemic and the sunspot activity and demonstrates the effects of his recommendation to convince us.

waidswUID: 2256074

In the argument above, the author recommends that people at flu risk should prolonged exposure to the Sun. After all, as we know, the long time exposure at the Sun do some harm to human's health. However, the arguer cannot convince us by only providing the coincidence of the flu and the sunspot activity as evidence of his recommendation.(开头写得不错，没有复述原文，有主题句)

First, this argument suffers a severe fallacy of lacking enough evidence of the correlation of the flu and the sun spot activity. Though the six worst worldwide flu epidemics in the past 300 years is when there was heavy sunspot activity, there is （yet）any scientific and concrete information to demonstrate the correlation of these two events. It is likely that some sunspot high activity years when there was no any worldwide flu epidemic at all.  Thus, we cannot conclude that some certain correlations exist between the worldwide flu and the sunspot activity.


Even assuming that this correlation exists, there is no guarantee that the function of this correlation is the significant more solar energy received by Earth. We may figure that it is the weather change that caused by the heavy sunspot activity do trigger the worldwide flu epidemic.  Without any scientific research and explanation that can points out what the correlation between the flu and the sunspot activity is, the recommendations the author makes later would be of little avail.


Supposing the more solar energy received be （by）Earth is the culprit for the worst worldwide epidemics, the effects of recommendation, which suggests people at flu risk  （at flu risk不知道可不可以这样说）avoiding prolonged exposure to the Sun , are beyond question. We even do not know what energy received from the Sun do harm to our health and how they cause the worldwide flu; how can we expect to know that the merely avoiding prolonged exposure to the Sun can decrease our risk of getting flu? It is likely that the energy caused the terrible worldwide flu epidemic cannot be reflected （prevented）by ordinary clothes or even buildings. Thus just avoiding exposure to the Sun would be no effects. Further, as we know, the sun shine do have some therapeutic effects for some diseases. It may even cause more severe illnesses if we do not expose to the Sun.（这点有问题，原文并没有说完全不接触太阳，只是避免过度接触，关于阳光对健康有利，可以在是不是阳光导致流感时说作为反例）

In sum, this recommendation fails provide sufficient evidence to convince us the effects of avoiding prolonged exposure and the correlation with the infection of flu epidemic. The author should provide more detailed materials about the concrete correlation between the flu epidemic and the sunspot activity and demonstrates the effects of his recommendation to convince us.


这篇argument挺变态的，写得我很郁闷。我觉得主线就是历史上几次爆发流感时太阳黑子运动也很强。然后得出易感冒的人避免过多地暴露在太阳下。我是这么认为的：首先，没有足够的证据来证明太阳黑子是流感的原因；然后说明就算太阳黑子是原因，也不一定和阳光有关系，然后再说有很多原因导致流感，避免一种情况不一定有效，还有很多其他的方法预防流感。因为我自己也搞得不是很清楚，所以对你的分析不能提出什么建议，但感觉还不错，语言比较精练的，联结词用得都很不错。