9月1号鼎钧，刚写了3篇argument。。。要疯了

malachiUID: 2667064

小弟9月1号鼎钧考试，刚写了3篇ARGU...模板还不熟练,求拍!argument51(题目没打,因为直接用word打的)
In this argument, the arguer who advocates that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment has ignored any other factors which may have affected the results of study. This recommendation that is based on the results of two groups of patient should be examined from several other angles.
In the first place, an accurate experiment must be controlled with the balance between the experimental and the control groups. The study does not provide complete information concerning the effect of ages, backgrounds, sex, and general health of the two groups mentioned. We also do not know whether the two groups of patients participating in the study were of same ages, backgrounds, sex, and general healthy as those who did not suffer from muscle strain. Further, if the first group of patients were more younger than patients in the second group, or were in a healthier condition, they may get little recuperation time in their treatment. In addition, the two groups of doctor is different. So we could trust that it was Dr.Newland who specializes in sports medicine that makes the first groups of patients get well quicker than patients in second group who was treated by Dr.Alton, a general physician. Unless the study could provide more accurate information, it would not serve to validate that conclusion.
In the second place, we may also ask: Do secondary infections go with muscle strain certainly? The arguer concludes that their recuperation time was , on average,40 percent quicker than typically expected is responsible for taking antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment, based on the fact that the secondary infections occurred after muscle strain. However, there is no evidence ensure that patients who suffer from muscle strain must get secondary infections. It is entirely possible that only a few patients get secondary infections after muscle strain. If so, how can the arguer relies on such a confusion to reasonably conclude that all patients with muscle strain would be take antibiotics?
Another element to consider is this: perhaps the second group patients’ recuperation time was not significantly reduced namely because they were given sugar pills which is the reason why they have no obviously change in recuperation time. Since the article fails to account for this alternative explanation for the second group patients’ recuperation time have no change in treatment, he arguer cannot make any sound recommendations. Furthermore, the arguer does not mention the side-effect of antibiotics. It is entirely possible that some patients are sensitive to antibiotics.
To sum up, the argument mentioned above is based on an experiment without strictly controlled and include representative selective sample. In order to draw a better conclusion, the argue should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.


题目：ARGUMENT53 - Thirteen years ago, researchers studied a group of 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli such as an unusual odor or a tape recording of an unknown voice. They discovered that these infants were more likely than other infants to have been conceived in early autumn, a time when their mothers' production of melatonin-a hormone known to affect some brain functions-would naturally increase in response to decreased daylight. In a follow-up study conducted earlier this year, more than half of these children-now teenagers-who had shown signs of distress identified themselves as shy. Clearly, increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life.
字数：358
用时：00:55:02
日期：2009-8-25 12:24:51


In this argument,the arguer assumes that increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life.To justify this assumption,the arguer cites a study that a group of 25 infants showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli thirteen years ago.The arguer points out that these infants may have effected by their mother's production of melatonin.The arguer also provides a follow-up study that conducted earlier this year,more than half of these children-now teenagers-who had shown signs of distress identified themselves as shy.The argument that has been ignored any other factors which may affected the arguer's conclusion should be examined from serveral other angles.

In the first place,these infants showed signs of mild distress would not suffice to ensure these infants are shy.It is possible that the signs of mild distress is the body reaction of unfamiliar stimuli such as an unusual odor or a tape recording of an unknown voice.The arguer fails to substantiate the relationship between shyness and signs of mild distress.

In the second place,we may also ask:Do melatonin which produced by their mother have an effect on infant?It is entirely possible that their mothers' production of melatonin just has effect on their mother own but not these infants.If so,how can the arguer draw that conclusion that increases levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness?

Another element should be consider is this:Even if increased levels of melatonin before birth certainly cause shyness during infancy,it is quite possible that increased levels of melatonin would not suffice to ensure similar continues into later life-due to the sort of factors mentioned above that might have contributed to shyness during infancy but would not come into play in other period.Comen sence informs me that any one of amyriad of other differences-environmental,genetic,dietary-might explain why this continues into later life.

To cut a long store short ,the argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence and sound reasoning,neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument.Unless the argument could provide validate that assumption.In order to lend strong support reason more convinsingly,cite some evidence that si more persuasive,an take every possible consideration into account.


argument203
In this argument, the arguer assumes that treatment in smaller, non-profit hospital is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospital. To substantiate/justify the assumption, the arguer provides the evidence that the average of a patient’s stay is two days in non-profit hospital, however, six days in for-profit hospital. In addition, the arguer points out that the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital. The arguer also reasons that the Saluda hospital has more employee per patient than the hospital in Megaville, and there ate few complaints about service at the local hospital. The argument that has been ignored any other factors which may have affected the arguer’s conclusion should be examined from several other angles.
In the first place, the arguer unfairly assumes that the less day patients stay in hospital, the better hospital is. However, lacking evidence to confirm this assumption, it is entirely possible that patients who suffer from heavy disease would like to be treated at the large hospital for particular service which may spend more days, rather than having a treatment at the small hospital.
In the second place, we may also ask: How heavily disease does the patient who is treated at hospital in Saluda or Megaville have? The arguer fails to substantiate this assumption, because he or she does not provide accurate information about patient’s disease in this argument. It is entirely possible that patients in Megaville’s hospital have complex disease, so their cure rate is lower than Saluda’s hospital which may be totally in opposite. If so, how can the arguer rely on such a confusion to reasonably conclude that the smaller, non-profit hospital is better than the larger, for-profit hospital? Further, employees per patient is make little sense as the same false analogy.
Another element to consider is this: perhaps there are few complaints about service at local hospital-due to patients do not pay money for the service as a “free lunch”. Since the argument fails to account for this alternative explanation, the arguer cannot make any recommendation.
To cut a long story short, the arguer’s argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. Unless the argument could provide more accurate data, it would not serve to validate that assumption. the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account, in order to lend strong support to what the arguer maintains.

xueyiUID: 2647060

占个楼，我改第二篇

xueyiUID: 2647060

在附件中~~~