ARGUMENT51,求拍，囧里个囧，最高频不好写啊

peterboyUID: 2638100

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 474
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009/8/27 9:54:37 Peter

Merely based on the dubious evidence, along with the unsubstantiated assumption, the arguer comes to the presumptuous conclusion. This argument suffers from several logical flaws as follows.


To begin with, the study of two groups of patients is not convincing. First, the experiment was conducted by two different doctors, one specializes in sports medicine and the other is a general physician. A large sum of empirical evidences tell that a specialist can have much better treatment for patients than a general doctor, let alone they are in the distinct field. Granting that these two doctors provide the same treatment, we still wonder about the conditions of these patients. It is entirely possible that the first group of patients is only slightly injured while patients in second group are much more severe suffered. It is also possible these two groups of patients are in different ages, health conditions as well as psychological conditions. Hence there is a chance it is the different qualities of in patients that really give rise to the different result. Moreover, sugar is not a credible control to antibiotics. For instance, if sugar has the function to slow down or even prevent the recovery from secondary infections, we can not conclude it is antibiotics who is responsible for the reduced time for recuperation. Even though the result is trustworthy, we are not told the number of these patients and the distribution of their living. Maybe only 20 patients are experimented and they all live in this same city. If so, they can hardly represent all muscle strained patients all over the world totally. Without ruling out such scenarios, the conclusion is never credible as it stands.


Even assuming that the study is credible, which is very unlikely, the conclusion that all patients with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is still open to doubt. It is common sense that some people are allergic to antibiotics. If they are treated the same as those people who is not allergic to antibiotics, no betterment of the treatment will happen but rather a medical accident. Besides, perhaps not every one is bound to get secondary infections and accordingly, there is no necessity to take antibiotics for them. Also, we are not told whether side effect will happen by taking antibiotics. If the price for preventing secondary infections is some symptoms such as headaches, stomachaches or nausea, a deeper consideration should be required. In the absence of these possibilities, the hasty conclusion cannot be so easily achieved.


In sum, this argument is not well reasoned hence lacking credibility. A more specific and strict study should have been conducted to demonstrate antibiotics is indeed effective for preventing secondary infections in muscle strained patients. Besides, other side effect of antibiotics should also have been considered to better serve these patients.

夏の末UID: 2603892

Merely based on the dubious evidence, along with the unsubstantiated assumption, the arguer comes to the presumptuous conclusion. This argument suffers from several logical flaws as follows.这一段有点抽象哈,应该还是要引用一下题目的背景内容吧.比如什么样的assumption, 什么样的concluion,否则这一段就没什么信息量了

To begin with, the study of two groups of patients is not convincing. First, the experiment was conducted by two different doctors, one specializes in sports medicine and the other is a general physician. A large sum of empirical evidences tell that a specialist can have much better treatment for patients than a general doctor, let alone they are in the distinct field.(let alone 后面可以接句子么??) Granting that these two doctors provide the same treatment, we still wonder about the conditions of these patients. It is entirely possible that the first group of patients is(are) only slightly injured while patients in second group are much more severe suffered. It is also possible (that)these two groups of patients are in different ages, health conditions as well as psychological conditions. Hence there is a chance (that)it is the different qualities of in patients that really give rise to the different result. Moreover, sugar is not a credible control to antibiotics. For instance, if sugar has the function to slow down or even prevent the recovery from secondary infections(我感觉题目的意思应该是说antibiotics防止secondary infection 然后recuperation time 缩短, 那你这里的意思已经是承认了secondary infection存在,再看antibiotics或者sugar帮助从secondary infections中恢复,是不是理解错了?)(感觉我讲得有点纠结)we can not conclude it is antibiotics who is (which are)responsible for the reduced time for recuperation. Even though the result is trustworthy, we are not told the number of these patients and the distribution of their living. Maybe only 20 patients are experimented and they all live in this same city. If so, they can hardly represent all muscle strained patients all over the world totally. Without ruling out such scenarios, the conclusion is never credible as it stands. (这一段可以重新安排一下顺序,比如先写study的patients不可靠,包括不具代表性,年龄问题,健康问题,这属于study开始前的问题,再写study开始以后的问题,包括医生不一样,sugar问题)


Even assuming that the study is credible, which is very unlikely, the conclusion that all patients with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is still open to doubt. It is common sense that some people are (用may be好些吧,你的好多句子写得有些绝对)allergic to antibiotics. If they are treated the same as those people who is(are) not allergic to antibiotics, no betterment of the treatment will happen (重新措辞吧)but rather a medical accident. Besides, perhaps not every one is bound to get secondary infections and accordingly, there is no necessity to take antibiotics for them. Also, we are not told whether side effect will happen by taking antibiotics. If the price (cost)for preventing secondary infections is some symptoms such as headaches, stomachaches or nausea, a deeper consideration should be required. In the absence of these possibilities, the hasty conclusion cannot be so easily achieved.(the arguer cannot safely come to the conclusion that... ...)


In sum, this argument is not well reasoned hence lacking credibility. A more specific and strict study should have been conducted to demonstrate antibiotics is indeed effective for preventing secondary infections in muscle strained patients. Besides, other side effect of antibiotics should also have been considered to better serve these patients.

夏の末UID: 2603892

peterboy同学,总能看见你贴文章哦~我前几天也有给你改ISSUE的,你什么时候考??

peterboyUID: 2638100

谢谢你啊 我9.1上财 时日不多了。。。

夏の末UID: 2603892

4# peterboy


呵呵，加油哦~~你写得挺好的！！！再注意下细节就OK了~我是9月25号在武汉，现在还没有开始限时……

peterboyUID: 2638100

5# 夏の末


你也加油！~