【Big Fish】3月6日 Argument81-By Jenius

jenius4869UID: 2659821

In this argument, the author recomments that the parents should not limit children’ exposure to irritants or bacteria for reducing the incidence of allergies in children and adults. To support the proposal, the author also cites a study and believe it could prove the second view towards to allergies mentioned in the argument. Instead of taking this suggestion, I would like to figure out several logical fallacies which render it unpersuasive.

The threshold problem with the argument, is the author adopts a vague study which could not substantiate the second viewpoint described above, let alone the advise proposed by the him/her. On one hand, the author fails to provide any elaborate information about this study. Since the author simply illustrates that children who wash frequently and whose parents clean their homes often are more likely sufferring from allergies than who are not, without offering detailed backgrounds of these children, we could not draw any firm conclusion. It is possible that the children who originally have no allergy to a certain stimuli can be considered have developed a proper immune system when they grow up if they have been tested with this irrtant. On the other hand, the author also makes an logical mistake by making the action taken by the children and parents in this study equal to the meaning of excessive hygiene. In all likelihood such measure could not gurantee the hygiene at all. For example, the children may involve in allegies outside.
Therefore, the study is not reliable from these two aspects.

Aother problem with the argument is the ambiguous statement of the second view. In this opinion, only by exposuring to a particular bateria will be able to help develop a appropriate immune system. While it does not illustrate the definition of such a bateria which could be any kind of bateria to anyone. How could we know which one has such function? Anther vague point is that the range of time. Since the author cites the phrase “later on”, how would we possibly know how long exectly can be proper to substantiate this assertion? Again, what does the “certain irritants” mean by the author? Are they include the bateria that cause allergies the children does not have allergy for? Without illustrating these problems clearly and elaborately, we could not even design any studies to prove this point of view.

Even if exposing to some stimulus could help to develop a better immune system for children, the parents should not allow their children to be exposed to all the irritants and bateria. As the viewpoint suggests, expose to a particular bateria could trigger the proper development of immune system, however, could not turn out to be the expose to all kinds of stimulus. Perhaps some irritants are able to cause some serious symptoms or diseases which definitely are harm to the children’s health. Therefore, maybe not limiting the children’s exposure to some allergy sources deliberately is reasonalble, but for some certain stimulus, it is better to avoid them.

In conclusion, the suggestion is not convincing for the aspects I discussed above. To better evaluate it, the author should offer elaborate information about the study, as well as the meaning of the second pointview. What is more, as how to develop a proper immune system, we need much more to consider, even if expose to certain bateria could help.

jjooyyUID: 2704028

In this argument, the author recomments that the parents should not limit children’s exposure to irritants or bacteria for reducing the incidence of allergies in children and adults(childhood or adulthood). To support the proposal, the author also cites a study and believe it could prove the second view towards to allergies mentioned in the argument. Instead of taking this suggestion, I would like to figure out several logical fallacies which render it unpersuasive.

The threshold problem with the argument, is the author adopts a vague study which could not substantiate the second viewpoint described above, let alone the advise proposed by the him/her. On one hand, the author fails to provide any elaborate information about this study. Since the author simply illustrates that children who wash frequently and whose parents clean their homes often are more likely sufferring from allergies than those who are not, without offering detailed backgrounds of these children, we could not draw any firm conclusion. It is possible that the children who originally have no allergy to a certain stimuli can be considered have developed a proper immune system when they grow up if they have been tested with this irrtant.(不是很懂这句话) On the other hand, the author also makes an logical mistake by making the action taken by the children and parents in this study equal(equate) to the meaning of excessive hygiene. In all likelihood such measure could not gurantee the hygiene at all. For example, the children may involve in allegies outside(?可以具体讲个地点什么吧). Therefore, the study is not reliable from these two aspects.

Aother（Another） problem with the argument is the ambiguous statement of the second view. In this opinion, only by exposuring to a particular bateria will be able to help develop a(an) appropriate immune system. While it does not illustrate the definition of such a bateria which could be any kind of bateria to anyone(为什么要用to anyone?).(整个句子一个while,不算完整的句子) How could we know which one has such function? Another vague point is that the range of time. Since the author cites the phrase “later on”, how would we possibly know how long exectly can be proper to substantiate this assertion? Again, what does the “certain irritants” mean by the author? Are they include(including) the bateria that cause allergies the children does not have allergy for?(看不懂) Without illustrating these problems clearly and elaborately, we could not even design any studies to prove this point of view.(a little weird, how about delete "design any studies to"?)

Even if exposing to some stimulus(stimuli,复数是特殊形式) could help to develop a better immune system for children, the parents should not allow their children to be exposed to all the irritants and bateria. As the viewpoint suggests, expose(exposure) to a particular bateria could trigger the proper development of immune system, however, it could not turn out to be the expose to all kinds of stimulus(stimuli). Perhaps some irritants are able to cause some serious symptoms or diseases(are they parallel?) which definitely are harm to the children’s health. Therefore, maybe not limiting the children’s exposure to some allergy sources deliberately is reasonalble, but for some certain(感觉重复了，而且some后面要是复数) stimulus, it is better to avoid them.

In conclusion, the suggestion is not convincing for the aspects I discussed above. To better evaluate it, the author should offer elaborate information about the study, as well as the meaning of the second pointview. What is more, as for how to develop a proper immune system, we need much more to consider, even if expose（exposure） to certain bateria could help.


错误 建议 精彩
楼主啊 写完作文应该自己改一遍 word 放一遍检查的 然后再放上来 很多拼写错误我也不一一指出了 你自己放一遍就知道了
bacteria 这个词一直打错，基本单词还是要掌握的哦！
好多词！每个问题都具体展开了，逻辑也比我好的，我都看不出来，嘿嘿
有些地方有点chiglish的感觉 比如 a proper immune system，改成a well-developed immune system 会不会比较合适一些？细菌的这个细菌，那个细菌，我也不是很清楚你的意思，个人感觉是真的需要这样讲吗。。。
语法方面要加强，单复数，复杂句不是越多越好，写出来要清楚无错。对词汇的理解，比如expose，有空多查字典～


by jjooyy

algabraUID: 2748722

1# jenius4869

红色 改正
蓝色 建议和评论
绿色 优点
下划线 删除

In this argument, the author recommends that the parents should not limit children’s exposure to irritants or bacteria for reducing the incidence of allergies in children and adults. To support the proposal, the author also cites a study and believes it could prove the second view towards to allergies mentioned in the argument. Instead of taking this suggestion, I would like to figure out several logical fallacies which render it unpersuasive.

The threshold problem with the argument, is the author adopts a vague study which could not substantiate the second viewpoint described above, let alone the advice proposed by the him/her (有凑字数之嫌，可以删去). On one hand, the author fails to provide any elaborate information about this study. Since the author simply illustrates that children who are washed frequently and whose parents clean their homes often are more likely suffering from allergies than who are not, without offering detailed backgrounds of these children,（这句有点重复，可以删去） we could not draw any firm conclusion. It is possible that the children who originally have no allergy to a certain stimuli can be considered as having developed a proper (换个形容词？) immune system when they grow up if they have been tested with this irritant.（这句话没看懂） On the other hand, the author also makes an logical mistake by making（改用considering？，lz想表达的意思是误认为两者相同，而不是使两者相同） the action taken by the children and parents in this study equal to the meaning of excessive hygiene. In all likelihood such measure could not guarantee the hygiene at all. （这句反驳有些生硬哦）For example, the children may involve in allegies outside.（承接上文，lz是想表达孩子们在室外也能接触到细菌吧？那么把allergies 改成bacteria？） Therefore, the study is not reliable from these two aspects.

Another problem with the argument is the ambiguous statement of the second view. In this opinion, only by exposure to a particular bacteria will be able to (可以删去) help develop a appropriate(换个形容词？) immune system. However (while是连词，不是副词)it does not illustrate the definition of such a bacteria which could be any kind of bacteria to anyone. How could we know which one has such function? (function？功能？什么功能？有点不明白) Anther vague point is that the range of time. Since the author cites the phrase “later on”, how would we possibly know how long exactly can be proper to substantiate this assertion? Again, what does the “certain irritants” mean by the author? Do they include the bacteria that cause allergies the children does not have allergy for? Without illustrating these problems clearly and elaborately, we could not even design any studies to prove this point of view.

感觉这段有点强词夺理，具体的过敏原太多了，到现在都没有研究清楚，没有必要具体到某种或某几种细菌

Even if exposing to some stimulus could help to develop a better immune system for children, the parents should not allow their children to be exposed to all the irritants and bacteria.（这个理由很好） As the viewpoint suggests, exposing to a(bacteria是复数形式) particular bacteria could trigger the proper development of immune system, however, could not turn out to be the expose to all kinds of stimulus it is harmful to expose to all kinds of bacteria. Perhaps some irritants are able to cause some serious symptoms or diseases which definitely are harmful to the children’s health. Therefore, maybe not limiting the children’s exposure to some allergy sources deliberately is reasonable, but for some certain stimulus, it is better to avoid them. (这句话转折有点累…)

In conclusion, the suggestion is not convincing for the aspects I discussed above. To better evaluate (evaluate是评价的意思，换成improve?) it, the author should offer elaborate information about the study, as well as the meaning of the second view. What is more, as how to develop a proper immune system, we need much more to consider, even if expose to certain bacteria could help. (这句看着像issue的结尾，不像argument的)

给出的只是一家之言，lz参考参考，不过感觉lz的逻辑和语言都还要多多下功夫，加油哦~

jenius4869UID: 2659821

2# jjooyy
谢谢你的细心批改，我前几天回家写的这篇，家里电脑的word不晓得怎么没有校正，不好意思啊，搞得你改得这么麻烦。
这篇文啊，我也感觉自己很多地方没有说清楚，确实对我来讲有点难啊。。。
对于你指出的，很对，3Q again！

jenius4869UID: 2659821

3# algabra
是啊，语法啊语法，没学好就是不行！
这篇文我感觉乱乱的，哎！思路可能不太清晰。
也谢谢你的批改喔~好感动，第一次有两个人批改~