[未归类] Argument51 今天厦门的机经题目~~练练~~大家指正~~ [复制链接]

In this argument, the arguer provide us with  the result of a study of two groups of patients in order to prove a hypothesis, that is , after severe muscle strain, a secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly. After careful examination of this argument(注意这里你好象少冠词了, careful前加a), I find the reason the arguer make groundless.

Firstly, the results of the study does(第三人称单数不对,用do) not lend support to the hypothesis. The study mere compare two groups of patients treated by different doctors using different medicine. One group of patients are treated with antibiotics, another group are treated with sugar pills. No a word in the article is mentioned about second infection, not to mention some details about how secondary infection will influence the patients who suffer from muscle strain.

Secondly, even if the compare of two groups of patients is aimed to draw the conclusion that antibiotics are more effective than sugar pills to cure the muscle strain, the evidence s the arguer supplies with us are not convincible enough to support his conclusion. Firstly, the arguer fails to compare the age of the patients in these two groups. Secondly, how serious the patients in these two groups are injured is not mentioned in the article. It is very possible that the patients in the first group are young peoples who age from 220-30, and the people in the second group are all aged man who age from 50 to 60. Were that the case, then the result will lake credibility. Additionally, the arguer does not take the psychological factors that may influence the patients. As the article mentions, the doctor in the first group is Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine. And the doctor in the second group is merely a general physician named Dr. Alton. Because the patients consider Dr. Newland to be expert in curing muscle strain, they feel more relieved than the second patients whose doctor is only a general physician. We can deny the psychological influence does play a vital role in the recuperation of the patients. What is more, in the first group, the arguer allege(还是第三人称单数,用alleges) that the patients’ recuperation tome was 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Here, the words  “typically expected” “significantly reduced” are so vague that we can define how long is the typically expected time and to what extent does the sugar pills influence the patients. Thus the number 40% will lack persuasion. Therefore, whether the antibiotic is more effective is still open to doubt just from the information the arguer provides.

Finally, the  arguer fails to rule out other medicines that may be more effective than antibiotic to cure the muscle strain. Even if the result of the study prove that the antibiotic are better than sugar pills in curing the patient, which does not mean that antibiotic is the best medicine. Here the arguer fails to compare the antibiotic to other medicine.

In sum, this argument lacks of credibility for the reasons I referred to above. In order to make his claim more persuasive, the arguer must to supply more detail about the relationship between the second infection and the muscle strain. Accordingly, he has to provide more details about the hypothesis and the study as well as rule out other possibilities that may weaken the reason.

我觉得你应该注意你的文章结构,第三段太长了, 给人的感觉不好.
还有现在应该注意细节了,什么单复数,第三人称单数,冠词之类的.
你的结构还是要重新调整,毕竟GRE作文是重结构的.
队长,希望我们能互相帮助,我也是26号考,在第一页上给我加上吧.
我尽快把我的发上来.我能用WORD贴附件上来吗?这样我觉得好看,好改.