[big fish] 3月6日 argument81 by wowoyuweiwei

wowoyuweiweiUID: 2754055

The author cites the survey to support the second opinion that the children's immune system will easily overreact to certain irritants caused by the limiting exposure to these bacteria through excessive hygiene denying the opposite one. For this sake, the writer suggest所 parents should not limit children's exposure to irritants to reduce the incidence of allergies. However, in my perspective, the evidence give can not support this idea.

Firstly, we know nothing about whether the exposure to particular bacteria can contribute to proper development of the immune system. Maybe some kinds of irritants are good for the system's development. For instance, they can help it form into a mature one to protect us against harmful bacteria or when this certain kind come into the human beings' body, it can stimulate our bodies to produce the certain antibody to kill this bacteria to help us stay healthy. However, some other kinds of bacteria may make our body turns to be the opposite direction like AIDS which can totally destroy the whole system and at last kill us.

Secondly, we should not conclude from the survey that the children who washed frequently and whose parents clean their homes especially frequently will more easier develop allergies than others. Nowadays, there may be lots of harmful factors in cleaning tools such as soaps and something else which keep us and homes clean. Thus, these may cause the allergies instead of the limiting exposure. On another hand, we should not deny the possibility that the gene also get allergies which, perhaps the most important factor. Therefore, whether the children are limited, they are still easily get sick when faced with bacteria.

At last, even if it is all because the limit exposure causing the allergies, it is not right for parents not limit at all.
What if the children touch the dead ones? If so, I don not think the immune system can make sense in the future for the children can not live that long.


To sum it up, to bolster the idea, the writer should give direct evidence show that the limit exposure is the only reason. And further more ,to make people believe, he or she also need to tell readers why let children get touched with bacteria can contribute to the immune system. Furthermore, it is more well-reasoned when the author show it is really good not to limit exposure to irritants.

jenius4869UID: 2659821

1# wowoyuweiwei

The author cites the survey to support the second opinion that the children's immune system will easily overreact to certain irritants caused by the（去掉） limiting exposure to these bacteria through excessive hygiene denying the opposite one. For this sake, the writer suggest（加s） parents should not limit children's exposure to irritants to reduce the incidence of allergies. However, in my perspective, the evidence give（provided by he/she） can not support this idea. Firstly, we know nothing about whether the exposure to particular bacteria can contribute to proper development of the immune system. Maybe some kinds of irritants are good for the system's development. For instance, they can help it form into a mature one to protect us against harmful bacteria or when this certain kind come into the human beings' body, it can stimulate our bodies to produce the certain antibody to kill this bacteria to help us stay healthy. However, some other kinds of bacteria may make our body turns(turn) to be the opposite direction like AIDS which can totally destroy the whole system and at last kill us.（你的观点是不是说不太确定是什么particular bateria，我觉得可以从因为针对不同人过敏源是不一样的，然后攻击他的study可能会存在问题。还有举例有点问题，这里主要针对的是会引起过敏的刺激吧，像AIDS这样的好像不太适合放在这里举例啊） Secondly, we should not conclude from the survey that the children who washed frequently and whose parents clean their homes especially frequently will more(去掉或换成much) easier develop allergies than others. Nowadays, there may be lots of harmful factors in cleaning tools such as soaps and something else which keep us and homes clean. Thus, these may cause the allergies instead of the limiting exposure. On another hand, we should not deny the possibility that the gene also get allergies（基因获得过敏？你可以说determine或者plays a much more important role in getting allergies） which, perhaps the most important factor. Therefore, whether the children are limited, they are still easily get sick when faced with bacteria. At last, even if it is all because the limit exposure causing the allergies, it is not right for parents not limit at all. What if the children touch the dead ones? If so, I don not think the immune system can make sense in the future for the children can not live that long. (没看明白 dead ones 指什么啊？) To sum it up, to bolster the idea, the writer should give direct evidence show that the limit exposure is the only reason. And further more ,to make people believe, he or she also need to tell readers why let children get touched with bacteria can contribute to the immune system. Furthermore, it is more well-reasoned when the author show it is really good not to limit exposure to irritants. 个人认为你的论证跟argument结合不紧密，问题说得不太清楚，有的时候更像是在讲科学，而不是攻击逻辑错误了。建议你在写之前先理清楚作者的思路，他是由什么推到了结论，然后再分析他的每一步是不是正确。