- 最后登录
- 2012-7-10
- 在线时间
- 245 小时
- 寄托币
- 356
- 声望
- 7
- 注册时间
- 2010-3-4
- 阅读权限
- 20
- 帖子
- 11
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 415
- UID
- 2774098
- 声望
- 7
- 寄托币
- 356
- 注册时间
- 2010-3-4
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 11
|
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. |
|