- 最后登录
- 2023-2-4
- 在线时间
- 5701 小时
- 寄托币
- 29807
- 声望
- 4149
- 注册时间
- 2008-11-24
- 阅读权限
- 100
- 帖子
- 1431
- 精华
- 20
- 积分
- 9285
- UID
- 2575525
- 声望
- 4149
- 寄托币
- 29807
- 注册时间
- 2008-11-24
- 精华
- 20
- 帖子
- 1431
|
51.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."
In the argument, the author concludes that antibiotics should be prescribed for all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain as a part of their treatment. To support his conclusion, the arguer cites a study involved two groups of patients. As a result, patients of the first group who were treated by a doctor who specializes in sports medicine and asked to take antibiotics have a shorter average recuperation time than those patients of the second group who were treated by a doctor who is a general physician and asked to take sugar pills.(这段是多余的,完全可以去掉) At first glance, the argument seems to be somewhat(seem和somewhat选一个就足够了) convincing, but close scrutiny of it reveals that this argument is logically flawed in several respects.(开头应该是个模板,而且貌似是被几万人用烂的那种,我建议你换一换~)
To begin with, the evidence of the study must be showed to be reliable before I can accept any conclusion based on it. However(这里无需转折), the study is unconvincing in several aspects. First, the argument fails to provide the absolute number of the patients(exact figure). The author can not draw any firm conclusion if the samples of the study is too limited(why?你这里要落足到“代表性不够”上,多加几句论述来把它解释清楚). Second, no information about the patients of the two groups such as age and body conditions which might help to bring about a different result is provided by the author. Common sense tells us that the average recuperation time of the younger and stronger patients will certainly be shorter than(这个比较合理) those patients who are old and have bad bady conditions. Third, even if the physical conditions of the two groups of patients are at the same level, but(不要) the difference(s) of the doctors might affect the result of the study. Since Dr. Newland specialized in sport medicine, he might have a better understanding of the illness of muscle strain than Dr. Alton did(这个不是最强的反驳理由,最强的是病人分布,如果DR.Newland刚好装上了一群因为运动不当而肌肉拉伤的病人,而DR.Alton撞上的是各种原因都有的病人,自然结果不可信), a general physician. As a result, the average recuperation time of the first group will certainly be shorter. Fourth, even if the doctor were at the same level for curing muscle strain, but there is no evidence to support that those sugar pills, which were taken by the patients of the second group, does not help to slower the healing. (这里漏了点东西,最好把sugar pills对slower(最好用alleviate)可能的作用讲一下,充分支持你的分论点TS句)It's too hasty to conclude that antibiotics is good for the treatment of the muscle strain patients. In short, without ruling out these and other possible factors which might effect the result, it can not convince me based on a invalid and misleading study.(除开一些他因不太合理以外,就是让步从句不要带转折连词的问题了,这段按照4+标准卡的话,差距不是很大,另外注意一下充分论述,多加点说理性的话)
In addition, even assuming that antibiotics can help reduce the recuperation time of the illness of muscle(这个让步有点问题,你上文并没有提到antibiotics的reduce作用,关于让步的用法,可以参考这篇https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=921368&highlight), it's too hasty to make the conclusion that all patients should be advised to take antibiotics when they are diagnosed with muscle strain. The author fails to consider the side effects of the antibiotics. Perhaps some of the patients would be allergic when they take antibiotics. Thus, antibiotics should be used with caution.(老实说,这段不是论述,是提纲...基本上你就是把提纲给翻译了一遍...我建议你把其中的内容再充实一下,至于如何充实请先自己对着官方范文思考一下)
In sum, the conclusion reached in the argument is misleading, because the evidences cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. In order to make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide a new study that is controlled in a strict conditions in which all factors of the two groups of patients are the same. Hence, the result of the study would sound inference. He would also have to demonstrate that the antibiotics do not have side effects for all of the patients. Therefore, the argument would have been more thorough and logically acceptable when it includes the factors discussed above.(结尾不改,个人习惯~)
这里有几个要说一下的地方:
1.你的文章,模板句子用的比较死,基本就是那么几个句式,而且绝对是顺着模板来卡思维,这个是大忌。模板考前时间不多的情况下,可以用,但是一定要限制在句子的范围内。以段落或者多个句子为单位背诵模板,会让你的思维变成模板的奴隶,是很得不偿失的一件事情。
2.对于论述来讲,你的说理性的话有,但是少了些,他因是用来证明你的说理的,所以因该是说理内容占主导地位,而不是整篇文章充斥着other possibilities。
3.句式单调估计是模板的后果,我回了别人一个帖子,你可以看看,然后思考一下:https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=941194&page=1#pid1772564746 |
|