Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument:
"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."
This article, which appeared in the Health and Wellness Section of the Chicago Sun Times (3rd March 2001), concluded that according to available medical records, the six worst worldwide flu epidemics during the past 300 years occurred in 1729, 1830, 1918, 1957, 1968, 1977. There was heavy sunspot activity in these years. Furthermore it stated that people who are in the high risk category for catching the flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the sun. To me, this conclusion was formed from a very narrow knowledge and could be criticized as being incomplete and be challenged on many fronts.
This argument / conclusion was drawn from medical records over a 300 -year - period. They were only the available records and relied on unknown medical evidences. Also it was not clear whether these medical records were of a comprehensive research or just purely of a statistical nature regarding people who had the flu. A period of 300 years means that this conclusion is open to challenge as there might have been greater periods of flu epidemics before this time. During which there were no periods of sun spot activity. Therefore the conclusion is limited to popular acceptances.
This conclusion asserts that the years that had heavy sunspot activity had the worst flu epidemics. "The National Research Council pointed out the correlation between flu epidemics and the peaks of the 11-year sunspot cycle, also known as the solar maxim." If sunspot activity occurs every 11 years why are there only six major flu epidemics over a 300 year period? There has been no mention of the flu or the risk of catching the flu during the other years. Moreover, during the alleged six years of major flu epidemics there were many other possible reasons and factors that could contribute to the outbreak and the spread of these epidemics.
Actually flu can be contracted in areas with very poor hygiene. Water contamination or poor hygiene standards in the transportation of water supply can result in a flu epidemic. Limited medical supplies can also affect how a flu epidemic is treated. Flu can be the result of weather changes whether man made or natural or living conditions of the society, too.
This conclusion ignored the fact that the flu could be prevented with taking sensible health precautions or taking proper care in avoiding all the factors responsible for the flu. It stated that avoiding prolonged exposure was necessary in order to avoid the flu. In fact, people who are at the high risk category for catching the flu should be aware of all the factors which could result in getting the flu. These people should maintain high hygiene standards, just like people with allergies should be careful in avoiding factors that could affect them. Proper medical facilities and standards are important elements in fighting and preventing the spread of flu epidemics.
In short, there is not enough evidence to prove the statement that prolonged exposure to the sun could result in the flu and that of flu epidemics. This conclusion was drawn from a very weak argument with a limited time frame, available data and evidence that can be challenged on a number of fronts. It is very possible that the two facts: that of sunspot activity and that of flu epidemics are completely independent and have no direct correlation with each other. Generally this argument conclusion can be criticized for being drawn on a very weak evidence and a narrow scope.
"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."
This article, which appeared in the Health and Wellness Section of the Chicago Sun Times (3rd March 2001), concluded that according to available medical records, the six worst worldwide flu epidemics during the past 300 years occurred in 1729, 1830, 1918, 1957, 1968, 1977. There was heavy sunspot activity in these years. Furthermore it stated that people who are in the high risk category for catching the flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the sun. To me, this conclusion was formed from a very narrow knowledge and could be criticized as being incomplete and be challenged on many fronts.
This argument / conclusion was drawn from medical records over a 300 -year - period. They were only the available records and relied on unknown medical evidences. Also it was not clear whether these medical records were of a comprehensive research or just purely of a statistical nature regarding people who had the flu. A period of 300 years means that this conclusion is open to challenge as there might have been greater periods of flu epidemics before this time. During which there were no periods of sun spot activity. Therefore the conclusion is limited to popular acceptances.
This conclusion asserts that the years that had heavy sunspot activity had the worst flu epidemics. "The National Research Council pointed out the correlation between flu epidemics and the peaks of the 11-year sunspot cycle, also known as the solar maxim." If sunspot activity occurs every 11 years why are there only six major flu epidemics over a 300 year period? There has been no mention of the flu or the risk of catching the flu during the other years. Moreover, during the alleged six years of major flu epidemics there were many other possible reasons and factors that could contribute to the outbreak and the spread of these epidemics.
Actually flu can be contracted in areas with very poor hygiene. Water contamination or poor hygiene standards in the transportation of water supply can result in a flu epidemic. Limited medical supplies can also affect how a flu epidemic is treated. Flu can be the result of weather changes whether man made or natural or living conditions of the society, too.
This conclusion ignored the fact that the flu could be prevented with taking sensible health precautions or taking proper care in avoiding all the factors responsible for the flu. It stated that avoiding prolonged exposure was necessary in order to avoid the flu. In fact, people who are at the high risk category for catching the flu should be aware of all the factors which could result in getting the flu. These people should maintain high hygiene standards, just like people with allergies should be careful in avoiding factors that could affect them. Proper medical facilities and standards are important elements in fighting and preventing the spread of flu epidemics.
In short, there is not enough evidence to prove the statement that prolonged exposure to the sun could result in the flu and that of flu epidemics. This conclusion was drawn from a very weak argument with a limited time frame, available data and evidence that can be challenged on a number of fronts. It is very possible that the two facts: that of sunspot activity and that of flu epidemics are completely independent and have no direct correlation with each other. Generally this argument conclusion can be criticized for being drawn on a very weak evidence and a narrow scope.
Do You Need