[a习作temp] argument51<aero>小组第13次作业 [复制链接]

jinbeili1987
UID: 2298239

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 90
注册时间: 2007-1-30
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-2-15 21:13:17 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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 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 this argument, the arguer concludes that through the two experiments it can be improved that secondary infections can shorten the recuperation time of the patients after severe muscle strain. This conclusion seems to be very justified. However, through analysis, we may find this conclusion is drawn to the irrational.

First of all, the arguer mentioned that the first group of patients who took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment recovered quicker than typically expected. We can not believe that the expert in sports medicine whether the doctor can complete the experiment correctly. Even if the doctor can complete the experiment correctly, the experiment is very unscientific. From the author exposition, we can not judge the recuperation time which is shorter than typically expect have the relation with the antibiotics. Such as we take more meticulous care to this group of people, they may recover quickly than other people. Or the people in this group of people is young people, they may recover quickly than old people. Therefore the experiment is very unreasonable.

In addition, the author referred to typically expected. This is very ambiguous. The expected time may be come out from the scientific experiment. And 40% of the people recover quicker than other people, this can not improve most of people will recover quickly. So this phenomenon is unbelievable.

Secondly, the second experiment is not the reason to improve author’s argument. The people in the second group were given sugar pills, their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. This experiment can only prove that their rehabilitation have little impact with the psychological role.

Compared with the two experiments, we may find that two experiments were taken by two different people. This may caused error inevitable. One doctor may think the recuperation time is from the time when patients taken the treatment to the time when patients can walk, but the other doctor may think the recuperation time is from the time when patients taken the treatment to the time when patients can recover from the muscle injuries. The two experiments should be carried out under the same conditions, people in the group should involve different age groups. It also should add a blank experiment. People in this group take conventional treatment.

To sum up, through the author’s exposition, we can hardly believe that the antibiotics play a significant role in the severe muscle strain treatment.

0 0

使用道具举报

孑。。。
UID: 2371205

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 151
注册时间: 2007-7-28
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2008-2-18 00:40:24 |只看该作者

今天考試。。不好意思晚了。。
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 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 this argument, the arguer concludes that through the two（one?） experiments it can be improved that secondary infections can shorten the recuperation time of the patients after severe muscle strain. This conclusion seems to be very justified. However, through analysis, we may find this conclusion is drawn to the irrational.
不错的开头，具体用词多参考一下范文
First of all, the arguer mentioned that the first group of patients who took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment recovered quicker than typically expected. We can not believe that the expert in sports medicine whether the doctor can complete(?) the experiment correctly. Even if the doctor can complete the experiment correctly, the experiment is very unscientific. From the author’s exposition, we can not judge the recuperation time which is shorter than typically expect have the relation with the antibiotics. Such as we take more meticulous care to this group of people, they may recover quickly than other people. Or the people in this group of people is young people(younger/stronger), they may recover quickly than old(weaker) people. Therefore the experiment is very(少用) unreasonable.

In addition, the author referred to typically expected（说清楚一点）. This is very ambiguous. The expected time may be come out from the scientific experiment. And 40% of the people recover quicker than other people, this can not improve most of people will recover quickly. So this phenomenon is unbelievable.（还是说要具体，抽象性的评价最好少出现）

Secondly, the second experiment（貌似是一个试验的两个组） is not the reason to improve author’s argument. The people in the second group were given sugar pills, their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. This experiment can only prove that their rehabilitation have little impact with the psychological role.（。。。想太远了吧）

Compared with the two experiments, we may find that two experiments were taken by two different people（表意模糊）. （要用短句，也建议用逻辑次连接）This may caused error inevitable. One doctor may think the recuperation time is from the time when patients taken the treatment to the time when patients can walk, but the other doctor may think the recuperation time is from the time when patients taken the treatment to the time when patients can recover from the muscle injuries. The two experiments should be carried out under the same conditions, people in the group should involve different age groups. It also should add a blank experiment. People in this group take conventional treatment.

To sum up, through the author’s exposition, we can hardly believe that the antibiotics play a significant role in the severe muscle strain treatment.
建议：
1．可以用一下连接词把两句短句连起来，或者用从句嵌套也行，显得专业些。呵呵。。
2．找到正确的英语表达。先模仿把
3．主要的错误类型网上有，论证都有套路的，很有逻辑的感觉。。

使用道具举报