Argument51 【微观状态】 第四次作业 求拍！

为了忘却的纪念UID: 2263082

Argument51
The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."

By giving out a study of two groups of patients with muscle strain, the arguer draws out a conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Careful examination will reveal that this argument suffers from several faults in both the assumption and evidence, thus is unconvincing.  

The argument based on an assumption that all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain will have secondary infection, thus all of them should be advised to take antibiotics, but gives no evidence to support that. It might be the case that only 10 percent of the patients with muscle strain will have the possibility to have secondary infection. In this case, the conclusion that all the patients should take antibiotics is not reasonable. To make his conclusion convincing, the arguer needs to give out the information that the patients with muscle strain indeed suffer from the second infections and how much percentage the possibility is. Only be given out the above information, could we be convinced that it is meaningful to discuss if there is the need to suggest patients to take antibiotics, and if there is, what kind of and how many patients should be considered.

The arguer also included a study to support his conclusion, which is questionable in three aspects. First, the study was done on two groups, but no detailed information about the condition of the patients of each group has been given out. Maybe the patients in first group are younger and with lighter muscle injuries, thus the shorter recuperation time is not because of the taking of antibiotics. Secondly, the two groups were treated by different doctors, as the arguer mentioned, the first group was treated by Dr. Newland, who specializes in sports medicine, and the second group was treated by Dr. Alton, who is a general physician. It is likely that since Dr. Newland is a sports medicine expert, besides the antibiotics, he also gave some sports medicines to the patients as part of his treatment, which is the key for the shorter recovery time; while for the second group, nothing has been given by the general physician except the sugar pills. Thirdly, no evidence has been given out that the sugar pills, which have been given to the second group for treatment, will do no negative effect for the recover of the patients. Thus, the assumption that taking antibiotics will help on the healing of muscle strain based on the study is unconvinced.

Finally, even if antibiotics will take effect in the healing of the patients with muscle strain, we could not get to the arguer’s conclusion that all patients should be advised to take antibiotics. The arguer overlooks the possible side-effect that might be brought by the antibiotics, which is a common situation of almost all the medicines and also, there are maybe some patients who are allergic to the antibiotics, in this case, the antibiotics could be included in the treatment of those specific patients. Without taking all those situations into consideration, the arguer’s conclusion seems hastily and unconvincing. Only after ruling out all these possibilities, could we accept the arguer’s conclusion.

To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strength it the arguer must provide the detailed information about the possibility of the patients with muscle strain to have secondary infection, and also, to show that antibiotics are really effective in healing of the patients, a formal study which included the detailed background of each patients, under the supervise of doctors of the same expertise should be given out. And based on all of that, a thoughtful treatment plan which includes exceptions like allergic when introducing antibiotics should also be given out.

aunknownUID: 2173661

By giving out a study of two groups of patients with muscle strain, the arguer draws out a conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Careful examination will reveal that this argument suffers from several faults in both the assumption and evidence, thus is unconvincing.  开头很简洁，学习中
The argument based on an assumption that all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain will have secondary infection, 加上and thus all of them should be advised to take antibiotics, but 缺主语 gives no evidence to support that. It might be the case that only 10 percent of the patients with muscle strain will have the possibility to have secondary infection. In this case, the conclusion that all the patients should take antibiotics is not reasonable. To make his conclusion convincing, the arguer needs to give out the information that the patients with muscle strain indeed suffer from the second infections and how much percentage the possibility is. Only be given out the above information, could we be convinced that it is meaningful to discuss if there is the need to suggest patients to take antibiotics, and if there is, what kind of and how many patients should be considered.
这里我觉的是不是拿结论中的all patients and 那个假设中的some people 对比的说一下比较好，作者似乎是偷换了概念，另外具体说以下， 为什么一些人易发生，例如身体差异导致他们易感等等。
The arguer also included a study to support his conclusion, which is questionable in three aspects. First, the study was done on two groups, but no detailed information about the condition of the patients of each group has been given out. Maybe the patients in first group are younger and with lighter muscle injuries, thus the shorter recuperation time is not because of the taking of antibiotics. Secondly, the two groups were treated by different doctors, as the arguer mentioned, the first group was treated by Dr. Newland, who specializes in sports medicine, and the second group was treated by Dr. Alton, who is a general physician. It is likely that since Dr. Newland is a sports medicine expert, besides the antibiotics, he also gave some sports medicines to the patients as part of his treatment, which is the key for the shorter recovery time; while for the second group, nothing has been given by the general physician except the sugar pills. Thirdly, no evidence has been given out that the sugar pills, which have been given to the second group for treatment, will do no negative effect for the recover of the patients. 糖丸有副作用觉得有点牵强，建议还是不要这点了 Thus, the assumption that taking antibiotics will help on the healing of muscle strain based on the study is unconvinced.
这段非常漂亮，句式变化多且论证深入，觉得已经很不错了，学习！
Finally, even if antibiotics will take effect in the healing of the patients with muscle strain, we could not get to the arguer’s conclusion that all patients should be advised to take antibiotics. The arguer overlooks the possible side-effect that might be brought by the antibiotics, which is a common situation of almost all the medicines and also, there are maybe some patients who are allergic to the antibiotics, in this case, the antibiotics could be included in the treatment of those specific patients. Without taking all those situations into consideration, the arguer’s conclusion seems hastily and unconvincing. Only after ruling out all these possibilities, could we accept the arguer’s conclusion.
着段论证的也很深入，但你的主题是不是第二段重合了，建议合并或者改一下
To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strength it the arguer must provide the detailed information about the possibility of the patients with muscle strain to have secondary infection, and also, to show that antibiotics are really effective in healing of the patients, a formal study which included the detailed background of each patients, under the supervise of doctors of the same expertise should be given out. And based on all of that, a thoughtful treatment plan which includes exceptions like allergic when introducing antibiotics should also be given out.
这篇文章基本没有什么语法错误，句式丰富且富于变化，可以看出楼主的英文功底的确很不错，学习！
文章的结构和驳斥点也很到位，除了最后一个驳斥点改一下，我觉得已经非常不错了！学习

为了忘却的纪念UID: 2263082

谢谢aunknown的批改。
觉得第三段可以把重点放在批“some”和“all”，以及“severe muscle strain”和“muscle strain”上。
其实第三段，是想说，即使我们接受了arguer的前提，也不能简简单单的得出arguer的结论。还有很多因素需要考虑，比如说，药的副作用，再比如说，有人过敏，其实还是在批"all"了。

gongzhenUID: 2230083

By giving out a study of two groups of patients with muscle strain, the arguer draws out a conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Careful examination will reveal that this argument suffers from several faults in both the assumption and evidence, thus is unconvincing.  

The argument based on an assumption that all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain will have secondary infection, thus all of them should be advised to take antibiotics, but gives no evidence to support that. It might be the case that only 10 percent of the patients with muscle strain will have the possibility to have secondary infection. In this case, the conclusion that all the patients should take antibiotics is not reasonable. To make his conclusion convincing, the arguer needs to give out the information that the patients with muscle strain indeed suffer from the second infections and how much percentage the possibility is. Only be given out the above information, could we be convinced that it is meaningful to discuss if there is the need to suggest patients to take antibiotics, and if there is, what kind of and how many patients should be considered.
这段楼主想说以偏盖全的问题,我觉得不够充分.可不可以加上:"有些人可能没有感染, 就是感染了，也不能让所有的患者都去服用抗生素。单从病人的康复时间这一条来要求所有病人服用抗生素，是不是太武断了"
加上这些内容使论证充分些.

The arguer also included a study to support his conclusion, which is questionable in three aspects. First, the study was done on two groups, but no detailed information about the condition of the patients of each group has been given out. Maybe the patients in first group are younger and with lighter muscle injuries, thus the shorter recuperation time is not because of the taking of antibiotics. Secondly, the two groups were treated by different doctors, as the arguer mentioned, the first group was treated by Dr. Newland, who specializes in sports medicine, and the second group was treated by Dr. Alton, who is a general physician. It is likely that since Dr. Newland is a sports medicine expert, besides the antibiotics, he also gave some sports medicines to the patients as part of his treatment, which is the key for the shorter recovery time他给了其他的药品了吗?; while for the second group, nothing has been given by the general physician except the sugar pills. Thirdly, no evidence has been given out that the sugar pills, which have been given to the second group for treatment, will do no negative effect for the recover of the patients. 糖丸有负面作用?应该是抗声素吧Thus, the assumption that taking antibiotics will help on the healing of muscle strain based on the study is unconvinced.
写的真不错， 逻辑感真强，  钦佩楼主！

Finally, even if antibiotics will take effect in the healing of the patients with muscle strain, we could not get to the arguer’s conclusion that all patients should be advised to take antibiotics. The arguer overlooks the possible side-effect that might be brought by the antibiotics, which is a common situation of almost all the medicines and also, there are maybe some patients who are allergic to the antibiotics, in this case, the antibiotics could be included in the treatment of those specific patients. Without taking all those situations into consideration, the arguer’s conclusion seems hastily and unconvincing. Only after ruling out all these possibilities, could we accept the arguer’s conclusion.

To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strength it the arguer must provide the detailed information about the possibility of the patients with muscle strain to have secondary infection, and also, to show that antibiotics are really effective in healing of the patients, a formal study which included the detailed background of each patients, under the supervise of doctors of the same expertise should be given out. And based on all of that, a thoughtful treatment plan which includes exceptions like allergic when introducing antibiotics should also be given out.


[ 本帖最后由 gongzhen 于 2007-1-6 19:11 编辑 ]