argument51 写得没感觉了，大家狂批评吧

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

51The 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."
Outline
1，        没有说明两组病人的情况，或许第一组的情况本来就比2组好，恢复自然也快
2，        没有说明治疗的具体程序，如果在器具，方法等方面两组都是不一样的，结果不一样也很正常。
3，        即使第一组的antibiotics 比2组的sugar pillars有效果，也不能说明抗生素比任何药物都有效
body
At first blush, the argument seems to be plausible in light of some premises(such as two scientific experimens on two groups of patients, amount of recuperation time reduced by treatment and so forth)the arguer presnets to back up this inference. Nevertheless, as long as we take a second and careful thought, all the faults hidden in the author’s reasoning will be unveiled because the developer fails to take into consideration other vital aspects such as patients’ health condition, treat methods,anitbiotics' competitive power with other medicines except for sugar bills alone. All of these points more often than not carry more weight on evaluating the therapeutic effects of patients of the two group. In order to conduct a comprehensive analysis, I will list some facets which bear the immediate interest to the results of the treatment in the following paragraphes.

To begin with, the arguer does not furnish us with a single shred of evidence which lends to demonstrate that the health condition of the patients in two groups are in the same level before treatment. In most events,there exists the possibility that as a matter of fact the health condition of the first group is better than the second group, if this turns out to be the case, it’s natural that patients in the first group stand more chances to recuperate quickly. In the meanwhile, differenct people are receptive to different medicines and therefore it's possible that antibiotics apply well to Dr Newland’s patients as opposed to Dr Alton’s patients provided that antibiotic is the best fit for Dr N's patients' health.

What’s more,the developer never explains the concrete theraeutic procedure and methods used by the two doctors. Other factors like therapeutic equipment, psychic comfortment, evironment of treatment and the like besides selection of medicine alone could all beget different effects on patients, however, the argurer provide us with only the medecine the doctors use while ignoring the above factors which may reserve the equivalent importance. let’s make a hypothesis here, if the therapeutical facilities Dr N resortes to is superior than Dr A’s equipment, Do N, in addition,purposely understates his patients’ state of illness when chat with them so as to patients would hold a optimistic view toward their illness, patients of the first group inevitably would be more likely to recuperate in a shorter period of time than Dr A’s patients. Under such circumstance, this is nowhere more ture than on the issue that the claims made by the argure is based on too unilateral an aspect to be accepted by people.

Last but not the least,even if it’s true that antibiotic is more efficacious than sugar bills in curing mussle stain, it does not guarantee a same effective effect when compared with all other medicines. As a result, it’s arbitrary to judege that antibiotic is the apt choice when mussle strain is in dire need of treatment unless the arguer has already ruled out the liklihood of other medicines’ more powerful bearing on curing the disease.

In sum, having viewed all the aspects above, there’s no hardness to draw the conclusion that the subject question fails to provide us with a well thought out reasoning to support the arguer's claim. And the author is highly recommended to investigate the all-rounded situation as assumed in the above sections which are related to the treatment of the patients in two groups before reaching the eventual conclusion.

[ Last edited by sallyxindu on 2005-12-19 at 22:59 ]

gtrandUID: 2156108

51The 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."
Outline
1，        没有说明两组病人的情况，或许第一组的情况本来就比2组好，恢复自然也快
2，        没有说明治疗的具体程序，如果在器具，方法等方面两组都是不一样的，结果不一样也很正常。
3，        即使第一组的antibiotics 比2组的sugar pillars有效果，也不能说明抗生素比任何药物都有效
body
At first blush, the argument seems to be plausible in light of some premises(such as two scientific experimens on two groups of patients, amount of recuperation time reduced by treatment and so forth)the arguer presnets to back up this inference. Nevertheless, as long as we take a second and careful thought, all the faults hidden in the author’s reasoning will be unveiled because the developer fails to take into consideration other vital aspects such as patients’ health condition, treat methods,anitbiotics' competitive power with other medicines except for sugar bills alone. All of these points more often than not carry more weight on evaluating the therapeutic effects of patients of the two group. In order to conduct a comprehensive analysis, I will list some facets which bear the immediate interest to the results of the treatment in the following paragraphes.
　　　
　　　　感觉是作为开头段太长了一点。最后一句话（In order to…）可以不要，谁都知道你会接着进行分析。

To begin with, the arguer does not furnish us with a single shred of evidence which lends to demonstrate that the health condition(S) of the patients in two groups are in the same level before treatment. In most events,there exists the possibility that the health condition of the first group is better than the second group,; if this turns out to be the case, it’s natural that patients in the first group stand more chances to recuperate quickly. In the meanwhile, differenct people are receptive to different medicines and therefore it's possible that antibiotics apply well to Dr Newland’s patients as opposed to Dr Alton’s patients provided that antibiotic is the best fit for Dr N's patients' health.

What’s more,the developer never explains the concrete theraeutic procedure and methods used by the two doctors. Other factors like therapeutic equipment, psychic comfortment, evironment of treatment and the like besides selection of medicine alone could all beget different effects on patients,(; 或者.) however, the argurer provide us with only the medecine the doctors use while ignoring the above factors which may reserve the equivalent importance. let’s make a hypothesis here, if the therapeutical facilities Dr N resortes to is (are) superior than Dr A’s equipment, Do N, in addition,purposely (此处与前面衔接不上，不知是否笔误) understates his patients’ state of illness when chat with them so as to (so as to 只能接不定式, so that)　 patients would hold a optimistic view toward their illness, patients of the first group inevitably would be more likely to recuperate in a shorter period of time than Dr A’s patients. Under such circumstance, this is nowhere more ture than on the issue that the claims made by the argure （过于拗口）is based on too unilateral an aspect to be accepted by people.

Last but not the least,even if it’s true that antibiotic is more efficacious than sugar bills in curing mussle stain, it does not guarantee a same effective effect when compared with all other medicines. As a result, it’s arbitrary to judege that antibiotic is the apt choice when mussle strain is in dire need of treatment unless the arguer has already ruled out the liklihood of other medicines’ more powerful bearing on curing the disease.

In sum, having viewed all the aspects above, there’s no hardness to draw　（从句与主句的主语不一致） the conclusion that the subject question fails to provide us with a well thought out reasoning to support the arguer's claim. And the author is highly recommended （有这种说法吗？　It would be highly recommendable that the author investigate） to investigate the all-rounded situation as assumed in the above sections which are related to the treatment of the patients in two groups before reaching the eventual conclusion.

英语不错，结构也很好，主要的问题也抓住了。原论证还有两点也许值得反驳：一是两个组的康复时间只有平均数字，不能代表全体，很有可能第一组绝大部分患者的康复时间与预期相当甚至超过预期，而其中有少数患者的康复时间大大少于预期，从而拉低了平均数；第二组正好相反，多数康复迅速但个别患者时间过长。在Argument中，如果数据是平均数，总会找到漏洞。二是抗生素对付secondary infections可能证明是有效的，但绝大多数肌肉受伤未必会出现感染，因此不能一味用抗生素。

[ Last edited by gtrand on 2005-12-20 at 10:07 ]

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

谢谢gtrand的修改，受益多啊，以前一直没想过平均数会出现这么大漏洞的的，下次好好驳斥下了．看你的修改感觉很好

48778UID: 209221

At first blush, the argument seems to be plausible in light of some premises(such as two scientific experimens on two groups of patients, amount of recuperation time reduced by treatment and so forth)the arguer presnets to back up this inference. Nevertheless, as long as we take a second and careful thought, all the faults hidden in the author’s reasoning will be unveiled because the developer fails to take into consideration other vital aspects such as patients’ health condition, treat methods,anitbiotics' competitive power with other medicines except for sugar bills alone. All of these points more often than not carry more weight on evaluating the therapeutic effects of patients of the two group（s）. In order to conduct a comprehensive analysis, I will list some facets which bear the immediate interest to the results of the treatment in the following paragraphes.

To begin with, the arguer does not furnish us with a single shred of evidence which lends to demonstrate that the health condition of the patients in two groups are in the same level before treatment. In most events,there exists the possibility that as a matter of fact the health condition of the first group is better than the second group, if this turns out to be the case, it’s natural that patients in the first group stand more chances to recuperate quickly. In the meanwhile, differenct people are receptive to different medicines and therefore it's possible that antibiotics apply well to Dr Newland’s patients as opposed to Dr Alton’s patients provided that antibiotic is the best fit for Dr N's patients' health.

What’s more,the developer never explains the concrete theraeutic procedure and methods used by the two doctors. Other factors like therapeutic equipment, psychic comfortment, evironment of treatment and the like besides selection of medicine alone could all beget different effects on patients, however, the argurer provide us with only the medecine the doctors use while ignoring the above factors which may reserve the equivalent importance. let’s make a hypothesis here, if the therapeutical facilities Dr N resortes to is superior than Dr A’s equipment, Do N, in addition, purposely understates his patients’ state of illness when chat with them so as to patients would hold a optimistic view toward their illness, patients of the first group inevitably would be more likely to recuperate in a shorter period of time than Dr A’s patients. Under such circumstance, this is nowhere more ture than on the issue that the claims made by the argure is based on too unilateral an aspect to be accepted by people.

Last but not the least, even if it’s true that antibiotic is more efficacious than sugar bills in curing mussle stain, it does not guarantee a same effective effect when compared with all other medicines. As a result, it’s arbitrary to judge that antibiotic is the apt choice when muscle strain is in dire need of treatment unless the arguer has already ruled out the likelihood of other medicines’ more powerful bearing on curing the disease.

In sum, having viewed all the aspects above, there’s no hardness to draw the conclusion that the subject question fails to provide us with a well thought out reasoning to support the arguer's claim. And the author is highly recommended to investigate the all-rounded situation as assumed in the above sections which are related to the treatment of the patients in two groups before reaching the eventual conclusion.
文章的每一个分析都很到位，我认为第一和第二个可以在一个里边分析。这样的话就可以分析一下上一位提出的第一个问题。我认为这样更合逻辑。至于语言错误说实在话我还没那个水平纠正，望原谅。

安婧UID: 2156480

Sally写文章写得真好！好羡慕啊！

我什么时候才能写出这么漂亮的文章来呢？加油中……