argument59 寄托4人组 8.23 作业

tangjihedeUID：2107695

Argument59  第4篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托4人组     共用时间：30分2秒     343 words
从2005年7月23日16时32分到2005年7月23日17时30分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
By appealing to the medical records and deduction, the author in this argument suggests people at particular risk for flu to avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun. Although this argument does bear some merits, a close scrutiny will reveal that there are several critical flaws that undermines its' validity.

To begin with, the author fails to prove that there is a causal relationship between worldwide flu epidemics and heavy sunspot activity. First, no information is offered to show that the flu epidemics happened after the sunspot activity. Perhaps all the epidemics occurred at the beginning of those six years, while heavy sunspot activity happened in the middle of a year. Thus, the sunspot activity had nothing to do with flu epidemics.

Second, even if sunspot activity occurred before flu epidemics, the data of six years are not enough to prove that flu always follows sunspot activity. We know nothing about whether in other years with sunspot activity the flu epidemics also happened. Maybe in many years with heavy sunspot activity the flu did not happen at all, and thus there is no necessary connection between these two events.

Third, even if all years with heavy sunspots were also with flu epidemics, it is highly possible that the epidemics were caused by other reasons. For example, maybe at those years there happened to be worldwide wars, explorations, or other international activities; it might be those connections among people all over the world that resulted in the flu epidemics. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author's argument is only a fallacy of concurrence.

On the other hand, even granted that there is a causal relationship between these two events, the validity of author's suggestion is still open to doubt. The causal relationship between more solar energy and flu epidemics does not necessarily follow a causal relationship between exposure to the Sun and flu. Maybe the solar energy affects people’s health in other ways. It is likely, for instance, that the more solar energy changes the temperature of the earth, or increases the number of germs in the air, and it is these two changes lead to the flu epidemics. If this is the case, then merely avoiding exposure to the Sun will help nothing.

In sum, the author’s argument is not very persuasive as it stands. To make it more solid, the author would have to provide more detailed evidence to prove that a causal relationship between sunspot activity and flu epidemics really exists, and it is exposure to the sun that causes a flu.

423 words after polish.

meautoUID：2116250

占占占~~~

meautoUID：2116250

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.'
------正文------
By appealing to the medical records and deduction, the author in this argument suggests people at particular risk for flu to avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun. Although this argument does bear some merits, a close scrutiny will reveal that there are several critical flaws that undermines its' 昏，打个’ 干啥validity.

To begin with, the author fails to prove that there is a causal relationship between worldwide flu epidemics and heavy sunspot activity. First, no information is offered to show that the flu epidemics happened after the sunspot activity. Perhaps all the epidemics occurred at the beginning of those six years, while heavy sunspot activity happened in the middle of a year. Thus, the sunspot activity had nothing to do with flu epidemics.
我的看法是1729，1830是从总体上看太阳黑子活动比以前猛，不是几个月好一些，另几个月重一些。不过你这样写，很赞的说~~~~
Second, even if sunspot activity occurred before flu epidemics, the data of six years are not enough to prove that flu always follows sunspot activity. We know nothing about whether in other years with sunspot activity the flu epidemics also happened. Maybe in many years with heavy sunspot activity the flu did not happen at all, and thus there is no necessary connection between these two events.
呵呵，很对啊。补充下：他是根据 medical records来说的，这个medical records记录了以前的流感么？300年很短那。就是有，古人们的记录可能很有限，即使有，鉴于以前的通信条件，看到的也可能是局部的状况，而没有认识到是世界范围的问题。
总之，这available medical records是很有文章可作啊，其可信度，也能向SURVEY那样批啊
Third, even if all years with heavy sunspots were also with flu epidemics, it is highly possible that the epidemics were caused by other reasons. For example, maybe at those years there happened to be worldwide wars, explorations, or other international activities; it might be those connections among people all over the world that resulted in the flu epidemics. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author's argument is only a fallacy of concurrence.
或者是太阳黑子活动引起天气变化造成的。
On the other hand, even granted that there is a causal relationship between these two events, the validity of author's suggestion is still open to doubt. The causal relationship between more solar energy and flu epidemics does not necessarily follow a causal relationship between exposure to the Sun and flu. Maybe the solar energy affects people’s health in other ways. It is likely, for instance, that the more solar energy changes the temperature of the earth, or increases the number of germs in the air, and it is these two changes lead to the flu epidemics. If this is the case, then merely avoiding exposure to the Sun will help nothing.
这一段的内容可以放到上一段，直接间接，都是讲原因。我觉得这个叫人不要晒太阳，问题很大。1，以前的人世界范围流感可能是医疗条件和健康意识的不足造成的。意思就是说，流感中的人很多是感染来的，不是晒太阳流的感。现在这种问题没有了。2，就算是杀太阳流的感，太阳黑子的活动还是有可能让人流感，和晒太阳时间长短没关系。要打伞和搽防晒品。。。。
In sum, the author’s argument is not very persuasive as it stands. To make it more solid, the author would have to provide more detailed evidence to prove that a causal relationship between sunspot activity and flu epidemics really exists, and it is exposure to the sun that causes a flu.

哥哥家有二师兄UID：2124390

矛头你真是笑死人了,居然能想到打伞和擦防晒品:)

meautoUID：2116250

Originally posted by 哥哥家有二师兄 at 2005-8-23 21:49
矛头你真是笑死人了,居然能想到打伞和擦防晒品:)

:$女生的毛病

tangjihedeUID：2107695

Originally posted by 哥哥家有二师兄 at 2005-8-23 21:49
矛头你真是笑死人了,居然能想到打伞和擦防晒品:)

除了这点别的都很有道理。人家说的就是减少在阳光下的暴露，你说的这个和作者的结论有冲突么？难道是打伞了搽霜了心情好了所以就不感冒了？

不过别的说的真是很棒！赞!