[a习作temp] ARGUMENT 51 ^ ^ 求拍 [复制链接]

wonderrunner
UID：2727828

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 34
注册时间: 2009-11-18
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-2-20 23:10:08 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 wonderrunner 于 2010-2-21 22:16 编辑

高频第一篇，欢迎指导拍砖，不过是处女作，Be gentle… ^ ^

求教：
1.攻击点是否准确？排序是否恰当？
2.用词多样性上能否得到改进？有哪些词可以用更合适的替换？
3.开头是不是过于累赘，有无精简的意见？
4.其他可发现的问题

题目：ARGUMENT51 - 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."

字数：468 日期：2010-2-20 下午 11:00:38

In this newsletter, the author recommends patients dignosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of the treatment. To support this recommendation, the author presents a study in which one group of patients who took antibiotic regularly during their treatment recuperate faster than another group given only sugar pills. At first glance, the conclusion might be somewhat rational, but further consideration reveals that it contains several logical flaws and is therefore not as convincing as it stands.

First and foremost, the author's suggestion, claimed that antibiotics are needed as part of the treatment, depends on the assumption that the results of the study displayed by the author is reliable. However, the author fails to provide any evidence to support this assumption. The results of the study are merely preliminary ones and a further research in the future might overturn the current conclusion. Moreover, the two groups of patients involved in the study might be too small to help make a general and rational conclusion. Unless more statistic is showed, the author cannot make me believe that the results of study are reliable and the recommendation based on them is rational.

Second, the author overlooks the possible difference between the two groups of patients, which might be one reason that caused the distinction of the recuperation time. Patients of one group might be younger and robuster than the patients in the other one, so their recovery speed is naturally higher, or the patients in the second group have some traits that may slow down their recuperate rate. Without accounting for these and other possibilities, the author cannot convince me that antibiotics are helpful in shorten the recuperation time.

Even assuming that the two groups of patients have no great difference in a general way, there are other possibilities, ignored by the author, that might caused the difference of recuperation time between the two groups. For instance, Dr. Newland is more skillful than Dr. Alton, and therefore could give his patients more professional treatment to help them recuperate faster. What's more, the sugar pills might have some sideeffects in preventing the injured muscle from recovering quickly.

Finally, in asserting antibiotics are helpful for treating muscle injuries, the author overlooks the negative effects that antibiotics might have during the treatment. Regularly intake of antibiotics might result in drug resistance, which is harmful for the patients. Without ruling out the possibility of negative effects, the author cannot recommend antibiotics as a necessary in the treatment of muscle injuries.

In summary, detailed evidence to prove the reliability of the results of the study and convinced facts to show the key effect of antibiotics in treating the muscle injuries should be brought forth to better support the author's conclusion that antibiotics should be advised in the treatment for patients diagnosed with muscle strain.

Argument, 高频

相关帖子

回应
0

使用道具举报

wonderrunner
UID：2727828

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 34
注册时间: 2009-11-18
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2010-2-21 22:12:00 |只看该作者

是不是太差了…… 5555 米人理我~

使用道具举报

kissscient
UID：2749339

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 14
注册时间: 2010-1-14
精华: 0
帖子: 0

板凳

发表于 2010-3-1 20:37:52 |只看该作者

DId you wrote it in the limited time,If it is ,it's a good composition. The following is mine, written in 30 minutes,however only 367 words. Just be your reference model, compare it and you can tell me what you though about it,if you would like to.My e-mail:kissscient@163.com

The auther recommends that all of the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.To justify his conclusion ,the auther cites a study of two groups of patients,and makes an analogy between the two different results. It is obvious that the two studies are dubious and the analogy is problematic.

First, the result of the
first study conducted by Dr.Newland is vague and obviously fallacious.Readers are not well informed of what the recuperation time typically expected
is really are,and thus the comparison between the result of the first group and the result of the second group
is unsubstantiate. Besides ,the result of the second study is again vague and open to doubt.It is entirely possible that while the average recuperation time was not significantly reduced,the absolute recuperation time is much shorter than the first study.As both the results of the studies are invalid,the analogy between them is unreliable.

Second , if the results of the two studies cited in the argument are both accurate that is the recuperation time of the first study is longer than the second,however the analogy between them are still dubious. One reason is that the two studies are conducted by two different doctors, it is entirely possible that the skills of them are significantly different and perhaps patients in the second study are less confident in their physician ,resulting from their recuperation time longer since as is well known
that patient's phsychological condition affects the effect of the medicine patients take .Without ruling out such possibilities, the the conclusion drew from the analogy is insufficient.

Third, the auther fails to consider the side effect of the antibiotics. We all known that antibiotics has a harmful effect on our immune system which may rely itself on antibiotics.Also, It is likely that many people are strong enough and needn't to take antibiotics at all.Thus ,the claim that all of the patients diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics are biased and insufficient.

In sum, the argument is not well organized and the conclusion is unconvincing. If the auther provides accurate statistics about the two studies and If the studies are controlly conducted in which only the medicines patients take are different while all the other factors are similar, then the recommendation would be convincing and appliable.
1# wonderrunner

Just do it

使用道具举报