【草莓酱拌饭组】ARGUEMENT 柜台 -- 自己动手，丰衣足食。

NaperyUID: 2710990

自己动手，丰衣足食。
学着自己给自己批改作文。

非牛人，但也不妄自菲薄为菜鸟。
只是小树苗一株，需要阳光雨露的滋润。
相信，小树苗终有成为林荫大树的一日。

欢迎各位同学提出意见。
在此先感激不尽。
来者必回。
鞠一下躬。

2楼汇总。



51 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 advocacy of take antibiotics as part of patients’ treatment appears to be well-deduced and cogent, for its appropriate prevention in secondary infections formation. Whereas, the inference that a well-advised treatment of patients with muscle strain demands antibiotics may fail to give full play to the efficacy of antibiotics, and, if applied, may genuinely effect nothing and even turn out to be counterproductive.

A threshold premise, on which secondary infections are not favored by a quick recuperation after severe muscle strain, does not necessarily invariably hold. Sheer occurrence of secondary infections is the prerequisite of this claim. However, the lack of germane evidence that those patients with muscle strain are absolutely coupled with secondary infections, or more susceptible with this symptom, invalidates this premise. What’s more, in the two groups experiment, the personal data of ages, sex, and other physiological characteristics are not enclosed respectively to support this claim. There is also no statistic going differentiate between severities of injuries in muscle strain or secondary infections. Additionally, this claim will be more persuasive if the typically expected or recuperating time of both two groups has been defined and standardized.

Likewise, even though the proof mentioned above has been substantiated, the inference is still weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the work experience and technical level of these two doctors. More acquainted with muscle problems, a specialist could make out a much more targeted treatment with better-focused medical instruments, all of which will precipitate the recuperation time. Nevertheless, even accompanied by this point, the posture that the only determinant of quick recovery refers to antibiotics cannot stand, as the impact of sugar pills given to the second group literally has been neglected.

At length, despite that there might have been other agents of the difference in recuperation time; the claim loses sight of the side effect of antibiotics. It is a common sense that some patients are allergic to antibiotics and overexposure to antibiotics, just like penicillin, may lead to a fatal blow to these allergic patients. All these possibilities are out of consideration.

On balance, the conclusion which necessitates antibiotics for the treatment without pinpoint elaboration is just scratching the surface and arbitrary. Only more information such as the percent of secondary infected patients in muscle-strained ones have been provided, and this study is supposed to be founded on the premise of same symptoms, physiological characteristics, doctors, medical instruments and circumstance among randomly chosen patients, can a further call for antibiotics aimed at quick recovery in muscle strain treatment be aptly determined.

看了官方范文。模仿写ARGUE。

敬请各位拍砖，小手不甚感激。

小手之后也会尽最大努力帮其他同学小改下文章。

希望大家互相切磋。。。嘿嘿。。。


PS:

小爪子要罚站墙角~~

竟然贴错了提纲~~

汗，把一个练习写的东东贴错了~~

哎，脑筋又短路了啊~~

对不去斑竹大人~~

呜。。。。。

sakuraanneUID: 2253519

?
你粘错题目了，粘了二次感染的

sakuraanneUID: 2253519

这个argument15的批改建议可以参考此贴https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1022793&extra

sakuraanneUID: 2253519

网上提纲说理可以，但逻辑顺序有点混乱
个人认为第三点可以在开始写，顺便带过一句批survey--不批也不好，太忽视
2，4点可以放一起顺序写

sakuraanneUID: 2253519

你这个正文内容怎么又是51.。。。。。我雷死了

sakuraanneUID: 2253519

第一段太issue化，尤其是第二句，这样的结果是不够严密点题。
第二段倒是可以批这个hypothesis,但第三段直接跳跃到说医生技术经验等等逻辑就不连贯了，得先说这个研究无法prove this hypothesis，然后再说因为医生不同，这些实验方法什么的不严密之类。
at length这段不行，完全孤立出逻辑链而存在，可以看出是按照句子顺序在批，结果刚好碰到Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. 就混乱批开了
应该接着说即使这些医生的实验能证明二次感染阻碍痊愈这个假设，但也不能立即推出要用antibiotic解决问题。