[a习作temp] 挥泪求拍砖！！！！Argument 51 [复制链接]

runna
UID: 2825545

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 45
注册时间: 2010-6-2
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-8-15 19:51:52 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

"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."
Merely based on unsound assumption and suspicious evidence, the argument concludes that all patients who got muscle strain should be suggested to take antibiotics during the procedure of reputation. To support the claim, the arguer cited a recent study which involves two groups of patients with muscle strain with two doctor's treatment in support of this recommendation.
Additionally, he indicates that the patients who took antibiotics during the recuperation recuperated sooner than those who did not. At first glance, the author's argument appears to be convincing to some extent, but plumber reflection reveals that it leaves out some substantial concerns that should be presented to substantiate the argument. From personal perspective, the statement suffers from some logical flaws.
First of all, the author falsely assumes that the patients would get secondary infections. Howbeit, no evidence is sated that patients who suffer from muscle injuries would or incline to catch secondary infections. It is possible that the patient recuperates quickly and smoothly and it is unnecessary for him to take antibiotics. Thus the arguer offers a false premise that without founded and thorough proof and weakens the argument.
What is more, the study cited in the argument is unconvincing. The author fails to supply any details about the patients including their constitution, their gender, their age and other physiological traits even their mental circumstance and so on, because these factors could affect the result of the study to a large extent. Maybe the first group of patients are brawny and optimistic while the second group of patients are weak and pessimistic, thus, they could recuperate quicker although they don't take antibiotics. Even though the arguer has presented enough details, the validation of the study is still controvertible for the following reasons: First, unless the surveyors sampled a sufficient number of patients and did randomly across all the patients who get muscle strain, the survey results are not reliable to be representative generally. Second, all the patients who involve in this study should be treated in the same medical condition by the same doctor. As the author mentions, the two group of patients were treated separately by Dr. Newland and Dr. Alton, the former is a specialist in sport medicine while the latter is a general physician. It is highly possible that Dr. Newland is better than Dr. Alton at curling muscle strain. Hence, the author's recommendation is unwarranted.
Besides, the author draws a conclusion that all patients who are tested with muscle injuries should be suggested to take antibiotics from secondary infections may retard the patients' recuperation. It is seemly rational but after further study reveals that the author did not take account into the side effect antibiotics might bring about to the patients; Some patients may be allergic to antibiotics. These possible elements, inevitably, will prolong the recuperation time even lead to worse consequence.
In sum, this argument fails to substantiate its claim that all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics, because the proofs quoted in the analysis does not lend strong justification to what the arguer holds. To make the argument more convincing, the author would have to present more information refer to the patients who attend the study. Additionally, he would have to demonstrate that antibiotics could reduce the recuperation time definitely with a valid and rational research. Therefore, if the argument had considered and addressed the given factors discoursed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.

0 0

TMACJAMES
UID: 2836445

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 2
寄托币: 678
注册时间: 2010-6-17
精华: 0
帖子: 3

沙发

发表于 2010-8-18 14:18:34 |只看该作者

Merely based on unsound assumption and suspicious evidence, the argument concludes that all patients who got muscle strain should be suggested to take antibiotics during the procedure of reputation(recuperation). To support the claim, the arguer cited a recent study which involves two groups of patients with muscle strain with two doctor's treatment in support of this recommendation.
Additionally, he indicates that the patients who took antibiotics during the recuperation recuperated sooner than those who did not. At first glance, the author's argument appears to be convincing to some extent, but plumber(用plumb不好吗？plumber容易引起歧义) reflection reveals that it leaves out some substantial concerns that should be presented to substantiate the argument. From personal perspective, the statement suffers from some logical flaws.
First of all, the author falsely assumes that the patients would get secondary infections. Howbeit(连接的有些奇怪，因为前面都已经讲falsely了), no evidence is sated that patients who suffer from muscle injuries would or incline to catch secondary infections. It is possible that the patient recuperates quickly and smoothly and it is unnecessary for him to take antibiotics. Thus the arguer offers a false premise that without founded and thorough proof and weakens the argument.
What is more, the study cited in the argument is unconvincing. The author fails to supply any details about the patients including their constitution, their gender, their age and other physiological traits even(or好一些吧) their mental circumstance and so on, because these factors could affect the result of the study to a large extent. Maybe the first group of patients are（is） brawny and optimistic while the second group of patients are weak and pessimistic, thus, they could recuperate quicker although they don't take antibiotics. Even though the arguer has presented enough details, the validation of the study is still controvertible for the following reasons: First, unless the surveyors sampled a sufficient number of patients and did randomly across all the patients who get muscle strain, the survey results are not reliable to be representative generally(有些啰嗦，直接说the survey is not representative, 或does not have statistical signficance就可以了). Second, all the patients who involve in this study should be treated in the same medical condition by the same doctor. As the author mentions, the two group of patients were treated separately by Dr. Newland and Dr. Alton, the former is a specialist in sport medicine while the latter is a general physician. It is highly possible that Dr. Newland is better than Dr. Alton at curling muscle strain. Hence, the author's recommendation is unwarranted.
Besides, the author draws a conclusion that all patients who are tested with muscle injuries should be suggested to take antibiotics from secondary infections may retard the patients' recuperation. It is seemly rational but after further study reveals that the author did not take account into the side effect antibiotics might bring about to the patients; Some patients may be allergic to antibiotics. These possible elements, inevitably, will prolong the recuperation time even lead to worse consequence. （很漂亮！）
In sum, this argument fails to substantiate its claim that all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics, because the proofs quoted in the analysis does not lend strong justification to what the arguer holds. To make the argument more convincing, the author would have to present more information refer to the patients who attend the study. Additionally, he would have to demonstrate that antibiotics could reduce the recuperation time definitely with a valid and rational research. Therefore, if the argument had considered and addressed the given factors discoursed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.
总体来说逻辑漏洞都找到了，而且展开的也很全面。
语言很好，不少词汇运用的都很恰当，只是感觉有的时候有些啰嗦。全文580个字，绝对是足够了。用一些简练的表达或许效果会更好

UCL vs IC哪个项目更容易拿到全奖博？