寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › 【战G兔斯基】作业Argument 51作业提交楼

返回列表

查看: 2910|回复: 18

[未归类] 【战G兔斯基】作业Argument 51作业提交楼 [复制链接]

daisy吼吼
UID：2817369

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 7
寄托币: 185
注册时间: 2010-5-20
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-5-29 21:59:25 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 daisy吼吼于 2010-5-30 22:43 编辑

改作业的顺序楼下改楼上，一楼改底楼
组内新规定大家辛苦了
本次作业改好的也发回这个楼，比如改的一楼的再发是就回复一楼
周二中午12：00之前提交重新写的作业

在这条路上奋斗不息

回应
0

使用道具举报

daisy吼吼
UID：2817369

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 7
寄托币: 185
注册时间: 2010-5-20
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2010-5-29 22:49:56 |只看该作者

用时3小时，大约393字

本帖最后由 daisy吼吼于 2010-5-29 22:52 编辑

This medical newsletter infers that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would should take antibiotics as part of their treatment for doctors have confirmed secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. To justfy this conclusion doctors have made a survey beteween two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by 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 a general physician,
were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced.I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.
   First of all,the basic premise of this inference is that secondary infection will occur affirmatively after muscle strain.However,there is no any evidence revealed in the article to support this premise.There is also no data show patients with muscle strain are easily brought two injuries.
   Secondly,the survey has no stringency.Doctors took the experiment in two different groups.The patients in two groups may have unlike age,sex and healthcondition.In first group patients who took antibiotics may be yonger or their physiological functions are better.And the other group’s patients are probably of poor healthy.So it is not antibiotic accelerated the recuperaton time.Of course ,the two doctors’ level and experience will affect the recuperation speed.Generally soeaking ,doctors who specializes in sports medicine is more specialty than general physician.Thus his patients recovered quickly may own to his medical skill and konwledge but not to the antibiotics.
   Even if the two physicians adopted semblable treament ,the second group of patients who didn’t took antibiotics were  asked to take sugar pills.But the dissertator didn’t present any material to sertificate sugar pills have no bad influence to patient’s recuperation.It is loosely to make a conclusion according a survey by this two groups.
   Finally,the author’s inference is not rigorous enough.Advising all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain from a group of patients who took antibiotics and recovered quicker than others is opinionated .Except for sterilization ,antibiotics also have secondary action which the dissertator haven’t considered.To bolster the author’s conclusion,another survey with two groups which are under same condition ,such as doctors, patients’ healthcondition and treament ,should be done.A convincing data is needed.

在这条路上奋斗不息

使用道具举报

caiyunjiao
UID：2774098

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 7
寄托币: 356
注册时间: 2010-3-4
精华: 0
帖子: 11

板凳

发表于 2010-5-29 23:07:25 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 caiyunjiao 于 2010-5-29 23:19 编辑

首篇argument，写的太困难了，耗时近两个小时，写完感觉还不咋样……楼下的童鞋请轻点拍……
个人感觉我这篇缺点是开头太长，论证语言没有说服力，其他的问题请指正:p

2010年5月29日星期六作业
TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctorshave long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patientsfrom healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis hasnow been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups ofpatients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscleinjuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine,took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Theirrecuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typicallyexpected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton,a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patientsbelieved they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation timewas not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who arediagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibioticsas part of their treatment."
WORDS: 437 TIME: 01:58:33 DATE: 2010/5/29 星期六 11:07:21

1、研究信息不够，恢复时间差异可能由其他因素引起。如两组人患病前的身体健康状况是否相同，肌肉损伤的严重程度是否一样，参与调查时已患病时间是否一样等
2、即使样本一样，医生不一样。可能两个医生的医疗方法不一样，治疗的地点和季节也不一样，医术好坏不同，如第一个医生是专攻运动医学而第二个是综合医生。
3、急于概括。即使医生水平方法也一样，这次实验对象能否代表所有的肌肉损伤患者是有待研究的。其次虽然抗生素有助于康复，但没有提供它是否对患者有其他方面的副作用。

In this argument, the arguer concludes thatall patients who have muscle strain would be suggested to take antibiotics assubsidiary treatment. To bolster the assertion the arguer states a study of twopatients being treated for muscle injuries, one of the group treated by Dr.Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibioticsregularly through their treatment while the other were given sugar pills by ageneral physician Dr. Alton. The arguer claims that average recuperation timeof the patients in the first group was 40 percent quicker than typicallyexpected while of the second was not clearly reduced. Nevertheless, althoughthe conclusion sounds indeed reasonable at first thought, several logical flawsmay seriously undermine the argument.

First of all, the information of the studyprovided by arguer is insufficient to reach the conclusion. Never does thearguer concerning the differences between two groups' patients. For example,the arguer offers no information about whether the relative severity of theseinjures are similar or the health condition between two groups are parallel. Wecannot accept the conclusion before the arguer could provide details aboutpatients.

Secondly, the arguer mentions that the twogroups were treated respectively by Dr. Newland and Dr. Alton. Perhaps themeasures in treatment are different between two doctors for the reason that thefirst specializes in sports medicine but the second is a general physician. Itis common sense that a doctor major in sports medicine has better skills intreating muscle strain than a general physician; a fact that may cause thefirst group's recuperation time was quicker than the second group's. It isentirely possible that the treating place and season are not same that raisethe divergence in recuperation time. More contents should be given to supportthe study.

Finally, the author commits a fallacy ofhasty generalization. Even if we ignore the differences between patients anddoctors, was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region? Werethe survey respondents forthright and representative? Moreover, even thoughantibiotics do contribute to recuperation of muscle strain, is it detrimentalto other respects in people's health?
Therefore, until these questions are answered, it is impossible toassess the validity and reliability of the conclusion.

To sum up, the conclusion lack credibilitybecause the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to whatthe arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have toprovide us more evidence concerning the survey. To better evaluate thearguments, we would need more information regarding the two doctors, patientsin the survey, and the whole function of antibiotics.

GRE，吾必杀汝！

使用道具举报

fanyue3014568
UID：2647099

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 304
注册时间: 2009-5-31
精华: 0
帖子: 1

地板

发表于 2010-5-29 23:17:13 |只看该作者

交作业第一篇写得实在是烂
lx猛拍！

Based on the experiment concerning 2 groups of people taking different therapies and recovering at different speed, the writer draws the conclusion that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Reasonable as it may seem as first sight, it suffers from several serious flaws.

First of all, as has been cited, the first group --the group treated with antibiotics by a specialist in sports medicine-- recovers at a speed 40 percent quicker than typically expected, while the latter one shows no significant change. However, the writer doesn't tell us the number of people in either group. What if there are only 1 person in the 1st group, who happens to recover quicker? The limited number of samples lacks credibility and thus can't be representative.

Secondly, even if the number of each group is sufficient enough to be representative, the differences in the grouped patients might still cause the result. Their age range, body condition and way of life may also be the causes of the different result. Since the writer doesn't provide us with further information, it's reasonable to assume that the first group is made up of vigorous young people who generally recover quicker from sports injury while the latter one, seniors who generally lacks vigorousness.

Thirdly, a doctor specialized in sports medicine is bound to have more experience in treating muscle strain compared with a general physician. Taking this into account, we may say as well it's the doctor, rather than the medicine itself, that contributes to the significant change in the recovering speed.

Last but not least, in the end of the letter the writer hastily concludes that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. But from the survey we can only know that antibiotics might be helpful for severe injuries. Suggesting all patients to take antibiotics, regardless of the severeness of injury, might cause other problems. To name a few, the side effect on less severe injuries and the extra cost, etc.

To sum up, this argument would be more convincing if the writer can provide us with more details of the groups--the number of samples, the age range and the living habits of subject patients. And more information is needed about the 2 doctors assigned to each group.

忘掉你的笑脸和泪眼，做回我的齐天大圣。

使用道具举报

Lil'天
UID：2818567

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 49
注册时间: 2010-5-23
精华: 0
帖子: 0

5楼

发表于 2010-5-29 23:27:41 |只看该作者

人生第一篇GRE argument...各种折磨...从熟悉到写近三个半小时...交上了
   In this argument, the author conclude that taking antibotics is more effective for
patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. To support his conclusion, the author pionts
out that doubting by doctors for a long time of the fact that secondary infections may keep
some patients from healing quickly after severs muscle strain. furthermore, the arguer cites
the assumption has been proved by two groups of patients are treated for muscle injuries by
different doctors in different ways that one group took antibiotics and the other one did not.
however, these supports are not cogent argument.

   First of all, the two groups of patients were not selected randomly. We didn't know the
age, ability of resistence and other features of their bodies. In other word, the group which
were treated by Dr.Newland may make up of patients who had better ability than Dr. Alston's to
resisted the secondary infections. If so, we can not get a objective and scientific result from
he two groups.

   In additions, if all the patients have same physical condition,the difference of
treatments between the two different doctors may have different effect on patients. From the
argument we know that Dr.Newland is a doctor who specializeds in sports medicine, and Dr.Alton
is a general physician. On no account should we ignore the fact that they may treat patients in
different way by their difference medical experiments.

   Another problem is that the group which didn't take antibiotics as part of their treatment
took sugar pills. Dr.Alton may fail to consider the fact that whether sugar pill has byproduct
on healing muscle strain. The author doesn't show any information about suger pills are good
for the healing or not Therefore, the average recuperation time reducing perhaps caused by the
side effect on Dr.Alton's groups. So the result of study can not prove that antibiotics could
help patients of muscle strain decrease their recuperation time.

   In sum, the author's evidence accomplishes little toward supporting the author's argument
for that antibiotics shoul be well advised to be taken to patients who have got muscle strain.
He should provid more scientific information, study or data to support the view of antibotics's
good effects on treating muscle strain.

使用道具举报

orionbelt
UID：2817957

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 64
注册时间: 2010-5-27
精华: 0
帖子: 0

6楼

发表于 2010-5-30 07:34:28 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 orionbelt 于 2010-5-30 07:43 编辑

纠结了快三个小时。。。很烂。。。轻拍。。。
      The argument in the article seems convincing at the first sight owning to the application of the controlling variates method, the most common study method in science research, however, if we consider thoroughly the definition of this method that leaving the factor we study variable and controlling all the other interrelated factors invariable or at least tinily changed in the experiment, we can perceive that the researchers acquiesce a hypothesis apparently unreasonable that all the elements related to the recuperation times are the same between the two groups except the antibiotics.
      In the first place, the conclusion in the passage doesn't hold water unless the ratio of the secondary in the two groups are almost the same. It's not proved that one having severe muscle strain definitely have a secondary infections meantime. If it's a random event, we should group the patients meticulously to avoid the difference of the ratio between two groups which lead to a confusion that one group recuperate sooner because of a less ratio of secondary infections.
      Furthermore, each group has its own doctor, one is specialized in muscle injuries, while another one is just a general physician. Apparently the former can supply better medical treatments for the patients in the first group, which is a reason of shorter recuperation time that can't be ignored. Such we can't assert between a better doctor or the use of the antibiotics which is the real cause, even both of them. Actually there are many other analogous variable factors existing in this experiment that is significant but not so obvious that the reseachers may not take them into consideration. For instance, the average physical qualities, the distributions of the gender and the age, the average severity of the muscle strains. Without thinking over anyone of them can't we exclude the possibilities of their influences on the result of the study. Supposing the hospital living conditions in the second group are not so well as the first one, the experiment will become completely meaningless due to the no following of the rules of "controlling varieties method".
      In spite of all above, provided that all the fators are the same except the use of the antibiotics, one can still not derive the conclusion from the experiment because of the uncertain of the satisfaction of the request that there should be approximately equal and especially sufficient amounts of observed patients in two groups. Only in this way, can we get rid of the great influence of randomicity brought by a small sample capacity.
      In summary we can't derive the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment from an inadequacy experiment lacking many essential infomations for judgment. Even if the conclusion is right, we should also be cautious on using of antibiotics on account of their side effects which may harm our body. In short further precise experiment is needed.

Out of the world, out of the ordinary!

使用道具举报

elenalsh
UID：2821254

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 46
注册时间: 2010-5-27
精华: 0
帖子: 0

7楼

发表于 2010-5-30 08:11:16 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 elenalsh 于 2010-5-30 10:15 编辑

一大早发作文，这就是G的力量~用了2个小时，大家帮忙改了~

Argument 51

In this medical newsletter the author claims that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain which has been proved by preliminary results of an experiment. The author points out that the difference of the recuperation times of two groups of patients and offers the statistics to justify that all muscle strain patients would be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, careful examination of this supporting evidence reveals that some illogical points to the medical newsletter.
First of all, the result of experiment seems quite simple with no essential premise. Perhaps the distinction results from the diversity of body, the different dietary habit, and diverse treatment causing of diverse doctors, and so forth. No more evidences can support that the two groups of patients are in common at beginning so that we ought to take possibilities in account. Moreover, two groups in same cases, this hypothesis is preliminary results, which just describe the consequence, without any other theories supporting which are necessary while the newsletter has not adequately reported this part. To convince the patients that antibiotics are the reason of reducing typical recuperation time, doctors would go a long way toward explaining why antibiotics can enhance the muscle strain recovery. Meanwhile, the author cannot make any sound recommendations to advise to muscle strain patients take antibiotics. It isn’t qualified for spreading this medical research without any safe conducts. They should consider that other influences by antibiotics if doctors want to popularize research results. Besides, investment, research, and practice should be considered as well. Thus, without enough evidence justified it is hard to convince me on using.
In sum, the medical newsletter lacking of representative evidence render it unconvincing. To justify that it is necessary to advise patients take antibiotics as part of treatment, the author should provide such evidence including following: the theory about fundamentals of antibiotics, other experiments’ statistics and the authentic authentication supporting.

使用道具举报

乐知慧 UID：2815899 乐知慧当前离线最后登录 2010-6-2 在线时间 1 小时寄托币 16 声望 0 注册时间 2010-5-18 阅读权限 0 帖子 0 精华 0 积分 6 UID 2815899 禁止访问声望 0 寄托币 16 注册时间 2010-5-18 精华 0 帖子 0 关注TA 加好友标签发消息	8楼发表于 2010-5-30 15:58:49 \|只看该作者提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽

	使用道具举报

caiyunjiao
UID：2774098

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 7
寄托币: 356
注册时间: 2010-3-4
精华: 0
帖子: 11

9楼

发表于 2010-5-30 21:25:13 |只看该作者

2# daisy吼吼

This medicalnewsletter infers that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain wouldshould（多了一个情态动词？） take antibiotics as part of their treatment for doctors haveconfirmed secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quicklyafter severe muscle strain.（不知道摘抄原句行不行） To justify this conclusion doctorshave made a survey between two groups ofpatients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries bya doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularlythroughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percentquicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all beingtreated by a general physician,
were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were takingantibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Ifind this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.
   First of all, the basic premise of this inference isthat secondary infection will occur affirmatively after muscle strain. However,there is no any evidence revealed in the article to support this premise. Thereis also no data show patients with muscle strain are easily brought twoinjuries.（这个攻击点不错，不过我对此题的理解是题目第一句话是陈述事实，而此题的结论是吃抗生素能加快康复，所以我想的是有没有二次感染不直接影响到结论。个人观点，欢迎讨论）
   Secondly, the survey has no stringency. Doctors tookthe experiment in two different groups. The patients in two groups may haveunlike age, sex and health condition. In first group patients who tookantibiotics may be younger or theirphysiological functions are better. And the other group’s patients are probablyof poor healthy. So it is not antibiotic(that 是不是加上这个才算强调句？我语法很弱，有错请指正) accelerated the recuperation time. Of course, the two doctors’ leveland experience will affect the recuperation（需不需要加 ’s ?） speed. Generally speaking, a doctor whospecializes in sports medicine is more specialty than general physician. Thushis(觉得最好详细到具体某位，感觉有点指代不清) patients recoveredquickly may own to his medical skill and knowledgebut not to the antibiotics.
   Even if the two physicians adopted similar treatment, thesecond group of patients who didn’t took antibiotics were asked to takesugar pills. But the dissertator didn’t present any material to certificate sugar pills have no bad influence topatient’s recuperation. It is loosely to make a conclusion according a surveyby these two groups.（这点我真的没想到，学习了！）
   Finally,（感觉用finally像还要再陈述观点，推荐用总之之类的好一点）the author’s inference is not rigorous enough. Advising allpatients who are diagnosed with muscle strain from a group of patients who tookantibiotics and recovered quicker than others is opinionated .Except forsterilization ,antibiotics also have secondary action which the dissertatorhaven’t considered. To bolster the author’s conclusion, another survey with twogroups which are under same condition, such as doctors, patients’ health condition and treatment,should be done. A convincing data is needed.

文章找到了以下几个漏洞：1、二次感染是否会影响病人康复；2、患者和医生的差异；3、抗生素和糖丸的副作用；
整篇文章感觉写的很不错，观点清晰，思路明确，语句通顺，没有读起来很Chinglish的感觉。另外，嘎嘎，以后要注意以下问题啊：
1、
标点符号后要加空格，标点符号前不要空格；你还有地方多打空格了
2、
推荐用齐头式写文章，不用打空格，省力，段落之间加空行即可；
3、
写完文章先放到word里自己改一下错别字和基本语法错误，自己可以看一下哪里经常失误；（PS：貌似很多单词和我拼错的一样啊，呵呵）红色为拼错的单词（已改正）

GRE，吾必杀汝！

使用道具举报

orionbelt
UID：2817957

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 64
注册时间: 2010-5-27
精华: 0
帖子: 0

10楼

发表于 2010-5-31 00:05:30 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 orionbelt 于 2010-5-31 12:04 编辑

In this argument, the author conclude that taking antibotics is more effective （in treatment）for patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. To support his conclusion, the author pionts out that doubting by doctors for a long time of the fact that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severs muscle strain.（不好意思这点我没看懂）furthermore, the arguer cites the assumption has been proved by two groups of patients are treated for muscle injuries by different doctors in different ways that one group took antibiotics and the other one did not. however, these supports are not cogent argument.

   First of all, the two groups of patients were not（用may not be比较好，毕竟我们也不能肯定）selected randomly.（当样本数量不够大师，即使是随机的也不一定能保证后面提到的那些因素是一样的。所以这点暗含了样本足够大的假设。）We didn't know the age, ability
of（Resistance 且该词本身就有抵抗力的意思感觉不用加ability了）resistence and other features of their bodies. In other word, the group which were treated by Dr.Newland may make up of patients who had better ability than Dr. Alston's to resisted （to后面应该用原型）the secondary infections. If so, we can not get a objective and scientific result from
the two groups.

   In additions（无s）, if all the patients have same physical condition,
the difference of
treatments between the two different doctors may have different effect on patients. From the
argument we know that Dr.Newland is a doctor who specializeds in sports medicine, and Dr.Alton is （just）a general physician. On no account should we ignore the fact that they may treat patients in different ways by their difference medical experiments.

   Another problem is that the group which didn't take antibiotics as part of their treatment
took sugar pills. Dr.Alton may fail to consider the fact that whether sugar pill has byproduct
on healing muscle strain. The author doesn't show any information about suger pills are good
for the healing or not. Therefore, the average recuperation time reducing perhaps caused by the
side effect on Dr.Alton's groups. So the result of study can not prove that antibiotics could
help patients of muscle strain decrease their recuperation time.

（这一段我认为论证不太合理。原文是说服用了抗生素的比通常预计的康复时间要短，而服用糖丸的相比于通常预期的康复时间并没有变化。而通常的预期康复时间暗指以往没有抗生素也没有糖丸的治疗方法，因此这已经表明了糖丸是没有副作用的。再基于常识来看，这里应该不是出题人想要考生攻击的地方。）

   In sum, the author's evidence accomplishes little toward supporting the author's argument
for that antibiotics should be well advised to be taken to patients who have got muscle strain.
He should provid more scientific information, study or data to support the view of antibotics's
good effects on treating muscle strain.

   逻辑层次很清楚，原文中的逻辑错误点都攻击到了，只有糖丸那个我认为值得商榷。句式变化多样。稍微要注意一下单词拼写，每次写完后最好在word中进行一下拼写检查。

Out of the world, out of the ordinary!

使用道具举报

daisy吼吼
UID：2817369

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 7
寄托币: 185
注册时间: 2010-5-20
精华: 0
帖子: 0

11楼

发表于 2010-5-31 07:10:10 |只看该作者

7# elenalsh
In this medical newsletter the author claims that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain which has been proved by preliminary results of an experiment. （我当时是照抄了，学习！）The author points out that the difference of the recuperation times of two groups of patients and offers the statistics to justify that all muscle strain patients would be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, careful examination of this supporting evidence reveals that some illogical points to the medical newsletter.
First of all, the result of experiment seems quite simple with no essential premise. Perhaps the distinction results from the diversity of body, the different dietary habit, and diverse treatment causing of diverse doctors, and so forth. No more evidences can support that the two groups of patients are in common at beginning so that we ought to take possibilities in account. Moreover, two groups in same cases, this hypothesis is preliminary results, which just describe the consequence, without any other theories supporting which are necessary while the newsletter has not adequately reported this part. To convince the patients that antibiotics are the reason of reducing typical recuperation time, doctors would go a long way toward explaining why antibiotics can enhance the muscle strain recovery. Meanwhile, the author cannot make any sound recommendations to advise to muscle strain patients take antibiotics. It isn’t qualified for spreading this medical research without any safe conducts. They should consider that other influences by antibiotics if doctors want to popularize research results. Besides, investment, research, and practice should be considered as well. Thus, without enough evidence justified it is hard to convince me on using.
In sum, the medical newsletter lacking of representative evidence render it unconvincing. To justify that it is necessary to advise patients take antibiotics as part of treatment, the author should provide such evidence including following: the theory about fundamentals of antibiotics, other experiments’ statistics and the authentic authentication supporting.
全文找到了以下几个论点1、premise是不是被确凿证实了还不知2、实验是为了找出抗生素是否对康复有副作用，而这个时候影响实验的其他因素并不相同3、实验结果因为没有足够数据支持缺乏说服力4、由实验结果对病人提出的建议太武断，实验的可信度不够
全文结构很紧凑，没有废话，攻击出了多处漏洞，英语功底强大的说.
唯一想说的是文章找出了很多漏洞，几乎每句话都针对一个，如果这样很细的找但是没像那些找出大块漏洞的文章那样对论点展开可以吗。个人疑问，欢迎回答

在这条路上奋斗不息

使用道具举报

daisy吼吼
UID：2817369

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 7
寄托币: 185
注册时间: 2010-5-20
精华: 0
帖子: 0

12楼

发表于 2010-5-31 07:14:17 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 daisy吼吼于 2010-5-31 07:17 编辑

额，不好意思，不小心多占层~~~

在这条路上奋斗不息

使用道具举报

daisy吼吼
UID：2817369

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 7
寄托币: 185
注册时间: 2010-5-20
精华: 0
帖子: 0

13楼

发表于 2010-5-31 07:17:05 |只看该作者

9# caiyunjiao
This medical
newsletter infers that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics as part of their treatment For doctors have gone with a experiment to confirm that two injury may slow down a muscle strained people's recuperation.The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by
a sports doctor, took antibiotics regularly
throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percentquicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being
treated by a general physician,were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking
antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Ifind this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.
   First of all, the basic premise of this inference is
that secondary infection will occur affirmatively after muscle strain. However,there is no any evidence revealed in the article to support this premise. There
is also no data show patients with muscle strain are easily brought two
injuries.（这个攻击点不错，不过我对此题的理解是题目第一句话是陈述事实，而此题的结论是吃抗生素能加快康复，所以我想的是有没有二次感染不直接影响到结论。个人观点，欢迎讨论daisy觉得这个属于在细节上出来的逻辑错误了，premise作为前提，才产生了之后的实验，以及实验的结果，个人观点）
   Secondly, the survey has no stringency. Doctors tookthe experiment in two different groups. The patients in two groups may haveunlike age, sex and health condition. In first group patients who took
antibiotics may be younger or their
physiological functions are better. And the other group’s patients are probably
of poor healthy. So it is not antibiotic
that accelerated the recuperation time. Of course, the two doctors’ leveland experience will affect the recuperation（需不需要加 ’s ?daisy 觉得应该不要不，题目中出现了recuperation time 两个名词连用的地方） speed. Generally speaking, a doctor who
specializes in sports medicine is more specialty than general physician. Thus the former one's patients recovered
quickly may own to the doctor's medical skill and knowledge
but not to the antibiotics.
   Even if the two physicians adopted similar
treatment, the
second group of patients who didn’t took antibiotics were asked to takesugar pills. But the dissertator didn’t present any material to certificate sugar pills have no bad influence to
patient’s recuperation. It is loosely to make a conclusion according a survey
by these two groups.（这点我真的没想到，学习了！）

In sum,the author’s inference is not rigorous enough. Advising allpatients who are diagnosed with muscle strain from a group of patients who tookantibiotics and recovered quicker than others is opinionated .Except forsterilization ,antibiotics also have secondary action which the dissertatorhaven’t considered. To bolster the author’s conclusion, another survey with twogroups which are under same condition, such as doctors, patients’ health condition and treatment,should be done. A convincing data is needed.

文章找到了以下几个漏洞：1、二次感染是否会影响病人康复；2、患者和医生的差异；3、抗生素和糖丸的副作用；
整篇文章感觉写的很不错，观点清晰，思路明确，语句通顺，没有读起来很Chinglish的感觉。另外，嘎嘎，以后要注意以下问题啊：
1、
标点符号后要加空格，标点符号前不要空格；你还有地方多打空格了2、
推荐用齐头式写文章，不用打空格，省力，段落之间加空行即可；
3、
写完文章先放到word里自己改一下错别字和基本语法错误，自己可以看一下哪里经常失误；（PS：貌似很多单词和我拼错的一样啊，呵呵）红色为拼错的单词（已改正）
蔡的修改让我发现了不少问题，也学了不少东西，谢谢蔡谢谢大家，呵呵，我们的组

在这条路上奋斗不息

使用道具举报

fanyue3014568
UID：2647099

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 304
注册时间: 2009-5-31
精华: 0
帖子: 1

14楼

发表于 2010-5-31 07:30:39 |只看该作者

3# caiyunjiao
In this argument, the arguer concludes that all patients who have muscle strain would be suggested to take antibiotics as subsidiary treatment. To bolster the assertion the arguer states a study of two patients being treated for muscle injuries, one of the group treated by Dr.Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly through their treatment while the other were given sugar pills by a general physician Dr. Alton. The arguer claims that average recuperation time of the patients in the first group was 40 percent quicker than typically expected while of the second was not clearly reduced. Nevertheless, although the conclusion sounds indeed reasonable at first thought, several logical flaws may seriously undermine the argument.

First of all, the information of the study provided by arguer(the aruguer) is insufficient to reach the conclusion. Never does the arguer concerning(is the arguer concerned with) the differences between two groups' patients(感觉有些chinese-english,写成individuals in the two groups可能稍好). For example, the arguer offers no information about whether the relative severity of these injures are similar or the health condition between two groups are parallel. We cannot accept the conclusion before the arguer could provide details about patients.

Secondly, the arguer mentions that the two groups were treated respectively by Dr. Newland and Dr. Alton. Perhaps the measures in treatment are different between two doctors for the reason that the first specializes in sports medicine but(but强转折，但这里你要表达的是对比的意思，不太合适) the second is a general physician. It is common sense that a doctor major in sports medicine has better skills in treating muscle strain than a general physician; a fact that may cause the first group's recuperation time was(细节问题,cause … to be) quicker than the second group's(改成that of the second group可能更好一些). It Is entirely possible that the treating place and season are not same that raise the divergence in recuperation time. More contents should be given to support the study.

Finally, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if we ignore the differences between patients and doctors, was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region? Were the survey respondents forthright and representative? Moreover, even though antibiotics do contribute to recuperation of muscle strain, is it detrimental to other respects in people's health?
Therefore, until these questions are answered, it is impossible to assess the validity and reliability of the conclusion.(这段在文章中的作用是什么？如果是总结，为什么要和最后一段分开)

To sum up, the conclusion lack credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide us more evidence concerning the survey. To better evaluate the arguments, we would need more information regarding the two doctors, patients in the survey, and the whole function of antibiotics.

恩，文章的逻辑层次不错，层层让步，显得思维严谨。
优点不少，缺点不多，只说我认为可以改进的地方：
1.
需要注重细节。在主谓一致，介词使用，以及英文的习惯表达上有些细节问题。前两个通过总结不难克服；习惯表达方面，切忌在从中文提纲过渡到英文的时候死板翻译。
2.
有些模板化的句子，我认为最好是改写之后再用，以避免雷同。
3.
另外我有个疑问。提纲中前两个都是在列举他因，这样一来同类型的错误是否写得过多，导致文章的变化不足。我在写作过程中也有这样的问题，希望可以讨论一下。

总体来说很好。向老蔡学习！

忘掉你的笑脸和泪眼，做回我的齐天大圣。

使用道具举报

elenalsh
UID：2821254

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 46
注册时间: 2010-5-27
精华: 0
帖子: 0

15楼

发表于 2010-5-31 13:08:15 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 elenalsh 于 2010-5-31 13:14 编辑

6# orionbelt

      The argument in the article seems convincing at the first sight owning to the application of the controlling vitiate method, the most common study method in science research, however, if we consider thoroughly the definition of this method that leaving the factor we study variable and controlling all the other interrelated factors invariable or at least tinily changed in the experiment, we can perceive that the researchers acquiesce a hypothesis apparently unreasonable that all the elements related to the recuperation times are the same between the two groups except the antibiotics.
      In the first place, the conclusion in the passage doesn't hold water unless the ratio of the secondary in the two groups is almost the same. It's not proved that one having severe muscle strain definitely have secondary infections meantime. If it's a random event, we should group the patients meticulously to avoid the difference of the ratio between two groups which lead to a confusion that one group recuperate sooner because of a less ratio of secondary infections.
      Furthermore, each group has its own doctor, one is specialized in muscle injuries, while another one is just a general physician.( 这句话感觉有点怪，可又不确定怎么改比较合适.大家帮忙看看~) Apparently the former can supply better medical treatments for the patients in the first group, which is a reason of shorter recuperation time that can't be ignored. Such we can't assert between a better doctor and the use of the antibiotics which is the real cause, even both of them. Actually there are many other analogous variable factors existing in this experiment that is significant but not so obvious that the researchers may not take them into consideration, such as the average physical qualities, the distributions of the gender and the age, the average severity of the muscle strains. Without thinking over the personal characteristics can't we exclude the possibilities of their influences on the result of the study. Supposing the hospital living conditions in the second group are not so well as the first one, the experiment will become completely meaningless due to the no following of the rules of "controlling varieties method".
      In spite of all above, provided that all the factors are the same except the use of the antibiotics, one can still not derive the conclusion from the experiment because of the uncertain of the satisfaction of the request that there should be approximately equal and especially sufficient amounts of observed patients in two groups. Only in this way, can we get rid of the great influence of randomicity brought by a small sample capacity.
      In summary we can't derive the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment from an inadequacy experiment lacking much essential information for judgment. Even if the conclusion is right, we should also be cautious on using of antibiotics on account of their side effects (删掉which may harm our body, side effects不需再解释了). In short further precise experiment is needed.

orionbelt 写得很不错啊~
但是要注意一下细节，小的错误尽量避免。红色为修改，蓝色的为我认为不错的。
我认为里面对于考虑组员的选取方面叙述较多，有些重复情况，可以减少。

P.S: 因为今天一上午的课，不好意思没有按时交上修改……下次一定注意

使用道具举报