Argument105 （12月作文高强组——好好学习，天天作文）

一月一号UID: 2148376

我觉得他的思路就是 报告——结论
论证的时候可以先攻击报告：样本数量，以及调查的时间
问题就在于如果这样论证的话，就没办法再说下去了，因为没有办法对这个报告进行让步，所以先攻击报告——结论的解释。
1．  作者的解释的假设在于：社交活动可以接触一些病毒，而因为接触病毒而又免疫
（1）       人的免疫系统只能战胜一些病毒，是否能战胜全部的？
（2）       即便能战胜，接触一种病毒只有短暂的免疫力，是否能够有效预防感冒？
（3）       即便具有一种的免疫力，那么对于其他的相干病毒也未必能免疫。
2．  即使假设成立，但他的有效性是否成立？
（1）       攻击报告的可信度——样本？ Social ties= social activity?
（2）       由于相互传染的的病毒量未知，免疫的承受力又未知。



TOPIC: ARGUMENT105 - The following appeared in a health newsletter.

"According to a recent study, people with many social ties report catching colds less often than do people with few social ties. Consequently, researchers conclude that having an active social life probably helps strengthen the immune system. The researchers note that catching a cold-one of a family of highly contagious viruses-gives the cold-sufferer temporary immunity to that virus in the future, but not to the many other related viruses. Merely being exposed to a new cold virus, however, is not enough for a person to catch a cold, since a strong immune system can successfully fight off some new viruses. Thus, in order to prevent catching a cold, people should strengthen their immune systems by becoming more active socially."
WORDS: 486          TIME: 1:40:00          DATE: 2006-12-9

The recommendation above is so ridiculous in that the author arbitrarily concludes based a unconvincing study result and ostensibly sound but actually groundless explanations. This recommendation without guarantee would be somewhat misleading and may cause severe flu.

First, the study is not convincing due to the lack of research information, like sample quality, study period and where the study took place. We even do not who make this research and the authority of this study. It is likely that the study was conducted totally by a group of socialists, who do have any medical background, and thus make this study just to encourage people to join in more social activity. Who took part in this study and when it was processed are also unknown to us from this argument. Thus, we cannot exclude the possibility that when the group with less social activity took part in the study, there is happened a bad flu in their regions and consequently the reports of catching cold from them would be more than the other group. If the author cannot provide enough information about the study, we can hardly believe his recommendation.

Besides, the author's conclusion is based on the notion that catching a cold would make people immune to that virus for a temporary time, which means that we can only get the immune capability by catching cold. As we know, more social activity with people with cold would increase the risk of catching cold. Thus, how ridiculous it is the suggestion that we prevent the chances of catching a cold by getting a cold on purpose. Furthermore, unfortunately, this immune does not work on many other related viruses and only lasts for a temporary time, which means the effects our sacrifices would be so narrow and ephemeral. Besides, this is entirely the author’s assumption without any scientific evidences.

Nevertheless, even assuming that we would not catch a cold due to our strong immune system, which can successfully fight for some new virus, there is no evidences to demonstrate the notion that the contagion to a certain virus would be help decrease our risk of being infectious to cold. In the flu period, more social activity comes along with more chance to expose to viruses. But how many kinds of viruses our immune system can defect? We even cannot ensure we that definitely safe from these viruses, let alone the expectation that we can benefits with stronger immune systems and less chances to catching cold. Whether the escaping from the cold means our chances of catching cold are smaller? However, there is any direct evidence or even any explanation for this. This logical fallacy makes this recommendation is incredible and even ridiculous.

In sum, this argument above cannot convince readers and even somewhat misleading, in that it may trap people in higher risk to viruses. Its incredible study and illogical explanation would reveal how groundless this recommendation is.


写得过程中才发现我之前列的提纲要展开实在很难，而且互相之间的逻辑是不好联系
于是我又回头再好好读了下题，发现这道题要攻击的重点首先肯定不在于样本的有效性，其后的两句解释才应该是攻击的重点！！
那首先看他的第一句，他说得感冒之后才会对某种病毒有免疫力，那么他荒谬之初就在于要先得了感冒才能免疫，那隐含的信息就在于与人社交，得感冒之后就有免疫力了，这显然是很荒谬的
再来看第二句，他说由于人的免疫系统是我们即使在病毒面前也不一定感冒，这个是我觉得最难解释的一句，因为作者说这句话的意图可能在于说我们在社交活动中不至于感染上病毒，但究竟是论证不感染不等于感染几率下降，还是论证这句话语前面一句话的自相矛盾呢？我再写的时候用的前者。
但这是我有个问题就在于我们写ａｒｇｕｍｅｎｔ究竟是要主要以结论为最终的驳倒目的还是以其中的逻辑错误为攻击呢？　如果是后者，那么驳上面第二句的时候采用后者是否也可以呢？
这篇文章写了很久，觉得它最大的难度在于即使反驳也没太多话好说，不能像之前列一堆ｉｔ　ｉｓ　ｌｉｋｅｌｙ　之类的句子。

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

你说的那第二句话, 应该揣测这两句之间一些词的关系
The researchers note that catching a cold-one of a family of highly contagious viruses-gives the cold-sufferer temporary immunity to that virus in the future, but not to the many other related viruses. Merely being exposed to a new cold virus, however, is not enough for a person to catch a cold, since a strong immune system can successfully fight off some new viruses.
蓝的两个明显可以连在一起
Merely being exposed to a new cold virus (not enough)=>catch a cold => gives the cold-sufferer temporary immunity to that virus (not to the many other related viruses)=> strong immune system => Merely being exposed to a new cold virus (not enough)=>catch a cold =>.............

其实作者很有意思的搞了个逻辑循环在里面....两次转折负负得正
所以这道题会很绕人