寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › Argument51 请大家看一下

返回列表

查看: 2789|回复: 9

Argument51 请大家看一下 [复制链接]

cactus_g
UID：171393

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 316
注册时间: 2004-7-25
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2004-8-4 13:41:39 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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.'

The arguer presents the conclusion that patients who suffer from muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment, which is based on the study of two groups of patients. While this argument is not convincing as the researchers who conducted the study neglect other possible factors which may have a decisive affect to the result.

To begin with, the arguer simply assumes the result in the first group that the recuperation time was 40 percent quicker than typically expected can be attribute to the taking of antibiotics, which is not necessarily the case. Some other possible factors should also be taken into consideration. It is possible that during this period of treatment, the doctor arrange the patients to take other sports medicine, which have much better effect to the injuries and enable the patients to get well quicker. It is also possible that some other plans have been adopted such as exercises, psychology therapy. Say, during the evening of the treatment, proper intensity of exercise with the medical treat allow the patients to reach a better situation. And if the doctor manages to keep their patients maintaining optimistic and confident toward their injury, he can also succeed in shortening the recuperation time. Therefore, without consider the possible factors which may play main roles in shortening the patients' recuperation time, it is too arbitrary for the arguer to conclude antibiotics is merely the causation.

Secondly, the reason that recuperation time was not significantly reduced in the second group might due to the distinctions of therapy plan other than not taking antibiotics. As the arguer mentions, Dr. Alton is a general physician who might be more familiar to general diseases while lack experience and not good at dealing with sporty injuries. Therefore, during the treatment, not the best and most effective measures have been taken to the patients, which lead to final result. While Dr. Newland who specialize in sporty medicine may be adept at treating with such injuries and could dispose effective way as mentions above.

Further more, the arguer fails to provide any medical information about the medicine antibiotics. Will there be some negative side-effects during the using of antibiotics? And are there some restrictions toward the taking of antibiotics? Being not clear with all these potential danger, it might be too irresponsible to advise all patients to take antibiotics during their treatment.

Finally, even though taking antibiotics can help patients to recover, it still cannot demonstrate that secondary infections may keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. The study cited by the arguer cannot support this conclusion.

In conclusion, during any study, researchers should take into account other possible factors which may effect the final result. While in this argument, the researchers fails to do that.

回应
0

使用道具举报

cleonlx
UID：172606

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 787
注册时间: 2004-8-2
精华: 1
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2004-8-4 14:44:01 |只看该作者

The arguer presents the conclusion that patients who suffer from muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment, which is based on the study of two groups of patients. While this argument is not convincing as the reserchers(researchers) who conducted the study neglect other possible factors which may have a decisive affect to the result.(有些绕…个人意见,论点要表达的更清楚有力一点.)

To begin with, the arguer simply assumes the result in the first group that the recuperation time was 40 percent quicker than typically expected can be attribute to the taking of antibiotics, which is not necessarily the case. Some other possible factors should also be taken into consideration. It is possible that during this period of treatment, the doctor(which one?) arrange the patients to take other sports medicine, which have much better effect to the injuries and enable the patients to get well quicker. It is also possible that some other plans have been adopted such as exercises, phsychology (physical)or(psychological)?theropy. Say, during the evening of the treatment, proper intensity of exercise with the medical treat allow the patients to reach a better situation. And if the doctor manages to keep their patients maintaining optimistic and confident toward their injury, he can also succeed in shortening the recuperation time. Therefore, without consider there possible facotors(factors) which may play main roles in shortening the patients' recuperation time, it is too arbitrary for the arguer to conclude antibiotics is merely the causation.

Secondly, the reason that recuperation time was not significantly reduced in the second group might due to the distinctions of therapy plan other than not taking antibiotics. As the arguer mentions, Dr. Alton is a general physician who might be more familiar to genral(general) diseases while lack experience and not good at dealing with sporty injuries. Therefore, during the treatment, not the best and most effective measures have been taken to the patients, which lead to final result. While Dr. Newland who specialize(is specialized) in sporty medicine may be adept at treating with such injuries and could dispose effective way as mentions above.

Further more,(OFFICE指出这里要用 ’;’ 我不明白原因…) the arguer fails to provide any medical information about the medicine antibiotics. Will there be some negative side-effects during the using of antibiotics? And are there some restrictions toward the taking of antibiotics? Being not clear with all these potential danger, it might be too irresponsible to advise all patients(对于all patients,其实可以多写一句论述一下) to take antibiotics during their treatment.

Finally, even though taking antibiotics can help patients to reconver(recover),(你赞同了作者的结论了?). It still can not demonstrate that secondary infections may keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. The study cited by the arguer cannot support this conclusion.(什么才是作者的conclusion? 我觉得是采用抗生素来治疗.)

In conclusion, during any study, researchers should take into account other possible factors which may effect(affect?) the final result. While in this argument, the researchers(researchers) fails to do that.

个人感觉
几个论证段落逻辑结构不紧密,让我感觉你的思维跳动很厉害.
第二段有些罗嗦,语言可以再简练一点.
第三个论证点,没能够对于antibiotic对于all patients的适用性进行分析,只是分析了它可能的副作用就止步不前了,使得你的论证深度不够,很有些可惜.
第四个论证点感觉上有些没有必要,我读起来,觉得你甚至同意了作者的conclusion…

Err… 总的看来, 我觉得你对题目的分析还不够深, 其实题目还有一个很大的漏洞你没有进行分析, 那就是病人之间是否差异? 我看你的文章时, 就一直在期待:” 下一段该分析病人了吧? 下一段该分析病人了吧?” 结果一直没看到…
有些论证有些拖沓…其实深刻的论证不需要太多的语言,关键看你讲到点上没有.

对于论证结构, 我觉得相互之间的联系不够紧密, 如果我来写的话, 大概思路是这样的:
因为作者的论据是两组比较, 那我就抓住可比性来做文章.
1. 病人是否相同?作者没有提供足够的资料来证明病人的可比性.
2. 医生是否有可比性?两个医生专长都有很大差别,不可比.
3. 疗法上有没有别的差别?没有证据支持:”两组疗法除了没有antibiotic之外,其它都一样.”仍然不可比.
然后才是可比性之外的问题:也就是antibiotic的副作用和普适性.

我是才开始写狗狗的, 今天壮胆开始改别人的文章了,就当是练习critical thinking吧~~呵呵
胡说了很多,不知道你是否赞同.希望你能和我argue吧, 这样才能提高嘛,呵呵~~
有时间的话,能否帮我改改呢?
http://211.151.90.54/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=211863
先谢了.

我有時候會想啊：「或許我自己已經死了，現在的我只是義體及電腦所構成的模擬人格……」　　　　　　　　　　　　　──草薙素子

“怎么样？”
“我当然不会说那是个糟糕的电影。不过，基本上无论什么娱乐都只是一时的，而且也应该如此，像这种没有开始也没有结束，只是一味迷住观众使其无法离开的电影，不管它是多了不起的东西，只是有害无益”
“哦，很严厉的批评呢……在这里的观众中，也有人一回到现实就会遭到不幸。如果你把那些观众的梦想夺走，你承担得起责任吗？”
“承担不起啊。正是在现实生活中拼搏，梦想才有意义………只是把自己投射到别人的梦想里的话，跟死又有什么两样？！”
“真是一个现实主义者啊。”
“如果你把逃避现实叫做浪漫的话。”

使用道具举报

cleonlx
UID：172606

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 787
注册时间: 2004-8-2
精华: 1
帖子: 0

板凳

发表于 2004-8-4 14:53:01 |只看该作者

恩,前后又想了一下,觉得还有一个可驳的地方:
尽快康复是不是医治患者的主要目的?我们究竟是要更稳妥的治疗还是更好的治疗?
这好像从根本上推翻了作者的论调,
但好像很难写好...真正在考场上,我是不敢这样写的...
提出来,仅贡讨论,看看是否值得一驳.

使用道具举报

cactus_g
UID：171393

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 316
注册时间: 2004-7-25
精华: 0
帖子: 0

地板

发表于 2004-8-4 15:10:29 |只看该作者

谢谢你的意见，我很受启发：
在看到别人的argument51也发现在遗漏了对patients的差异论述，而且这个点也很容易展开。
关于论述的结构来讲，前两段我想主要驳它的study问题，也就是说是不是antibiotics起了决定作用，然后再说antibiotic的副作用。
文章的conclusion是采用抗生素来治疗，可是arguer本身也借用这个study来论证了secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain.我觉得也可以作为一个逻辑错误来驳。正文的最后一段并不是要承认对方的观点，而是想做一个让步来攻击，可能表达上不太恰当，还有就是正文最后落在这个点上的确不是很有力。
一些语法错误不好意思，编辑了一次结果还是没有改过来……
再次感谢你的意见和建议，以后我会多注意这方面的问题！

使用道具举报

cactus_g
UID：171393

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 316
注册时间: 2004-7-25
精华: 0
帖子: 0

5楼

发表于 2004-8-4 15:27:53 |只看该作者

“什么才是作者的conclusion? 我觉得是采用抗生素来治疗”
你的想象力很好，但是就如你说的conclusion是是否应该采用antibiotics
这样理解恐怕就要偏题了
“尽快康复是不是医治患者的主要目的?我们究竟是要更稳妥的治疗还是更好的治疗?”
argument主要让我们去驳他的可疑论据和推倒过程，而这里的“尽快康复”可以作为facts来理解，是不可驳的，你说呢？

使用道具举报

cleonlx
UID：172606

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 787
注册时间: 2004-8-2
精华: 1
帖子: 0

6楼

发表于 2004-8-4 15:37:26 |只看该作者

恩,我也想了想.觉得第四个论证点还是可以用的.
Err,先来理清一下作者的论证思路.
1.由两组患者的恢复速度不同----->antibiotic起了作用,
2.antibiotic是用来治疗感染的,antibiotic又起了作用------>患者都换有二次感染.
结论:1.所有患者都会患二次感染,2.所有的患者都可以用antibiotic来帮助他们快速恢复.

好像是我理解错了,你的最后一个论证是可以用的.不过,你的论证还是不够充分,没有指出为什么不可以从antibiotic"逆推"到二次感染.
其实我个人觉得这一点很难论证,谁知道抗生素还有什么用...

恩,尽快康复好像的确是不可驳的.
呵呵,就如我所说,真正考场上,我还是不会用的.

使用道具举报

cactus_g
UID：171393

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 316
注册时间: 2004-7-25
精华: 0
帖子: 0

7楼

发表于 2004-8-4 16:18:37 |只看该作者

最后一点好像就是不好论证，因为他们好像都不占边……
到考试的时候还是不用为好，其他几个能够充分论证就已经不错了。
论证是否充分的确是个问题，我以后会多注意这方面的练习，再次感谢！

使用道具举报

济公
UID：172138

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 458
注册时间: 2004-7-30
精华: 0
帖子: 1

8楼

发表于 2004-8-4 19:20:46 |只看该作者

No.1  Argument51请大家看一下
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.'

The arguer presents the conclusion that patients who suffer from muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment, which is based on the study of two groups of patients. While this argument is not convincing as the researchers who conducted the study neglect other possible factors which may have a decisive affect  :) 应该是effect to the result.

To begin with, the arguer simply assumes the result in the first group that the recuperation time was 40 percent quicker than typically expected could be attribute to the taking of antibiotics, which is not necessarily the case.  :) 好Some other possible factors should also be taken into consideration. It is possible that during this period of treatment, the doctor arrange the patients to take other sports medicine, which have much better effect to the injuries and enable the patients to get well quicker. It is also possible that some other plans have been adopted such as exercises, psychology therapy. Say, during the evening of the treatment, proper intensity of exercise with the medical treat allows the patients to reach a better situation. And if the doctor manages to keep their patients maintaining optimistic and confident toward their injury, he can also succeed in shortening the recuperation time. Therefore, without consider the possible factors which may play main roles in shortening the patients' recuperation time, it is too arbitrary for the arguer to conclude antibiotics is merely the causation. :) 我认为年龄，营养，身体的总体情况也可略带一笔,这些可以在两点后比较说明。还有，40% 的提高是平均水平，说明有人不能提高so much

Secondly, the reason that recuperation time was not significantly reduced in the second group might due to the distinctions of therapy plan other than not taking antibiotics. As the arguer mentions, Dr. Alton is a general physician who might be more familiar to general diseases while lack experience and not good at dealing with sporty injuries. 者一点不错 Therefore, during the treatment, not the best and most effective measures have been taken to the patients, which lead to final result. While Dr. Newland who specialize in sporty medicine may be adept at treating with such injuries and could dispose effective way as mentions above.

Further more, the arguer fails to provide any medical information about the medicine antibiotics. Will there be some negative side effects during the using of antibiotics? And are there some restrictions toward the taking of antibiotics? Being not clear with all these potential danger, it might be too irresponsible to advise all patients to take antibiotics during their treatment. 这个可以肯定的批，我是学医学的，抗生素滥用就是有害的而且以后会被禁止的。

Finally, even though taking antibiotics can help patients to recover, it still cannot demonstrate that secondary infections may keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. The study cited by the arguer cannot support this conclusion. 可以不说，因为抗生素有用的话，就有些支持的意思了，对你的反驳不利

In conclusion, during any study, researchers should take into account other possible factors which may effect the final result .如果有时间可以列举几个，While in this argument, the researchers fails to do that. 再加上抗生素滥用

使用道具举报