Argument51 拍死人有奖

bzr2915UID: 2612029

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."

提纲：1、服用抗生素并不能排除二次感染（因果关系错误）
      2、两组病人身体情况可能不一样（调查类错误）
      3、两组医生不同，对待患者的情况可能不一样（调查类错误）
字数 445   时间  1个半小时
借鉴了一些模板化的句子 感觉写的有点单薄..


In this argument the author concludes that secondary infection keep patients from healing quickly after sever muscle strain. Furthermore the author offered an study to substantiate the conclusion. At the first glance,this argument seems to be convincing but with further reflection the evidences neither constituting a logical statement in support for the conclusion nor providing compelling support making the argument sounded and invulnerable.

"The threshold of the problem is that the author assumes that antibiotics could keep the patients from the secondary infections.As all we know antibiotics have a sounded effect to kill the virus,however,it can't keep the patient from the secondary infections in 100 percents.If so ,hundreds of patient who were killed by the bird flu and H1N1 would be saved their lives by taking the antibiotics.Thus it is not safe to conclude that the first group of patients resume quickly attributed to away from the secondary infection .It's most likely that the antibiotics has the function to accelerate healing process.Until the author provided further evidence to exclude this factor,it is unfounded to reach the conclusion involved in the argument."

The second flaw which weaken the logic of the argument is that the author assume that  two groups of patients are in the same condition.Nevertheless,there is no guarantee that it is a necessarily case and it quite possible that the first group of patients are more stronger than the second group.They heal more quickly than the common even though they don't
take antibiotics.An appreciate example is not too far to seek,the troops often have to suffer more painful musclediseases than the common ,but they resume quickly than the normal people ,because they have been trained to get a high quality body.In short without better evidences to exclude this and other alternative explanation,it is reasonable to cast considerable doubts on the assumption.

The last but not the least important,even if the author could substantiate all the forgoing assumption,his assumption that the two doctors executed the same work except giving the different medicine is unwarranted.As all we know the doctor who specialize in the sport has more experience to deal with the muscle strain .It's much more possible that the first groups' doctor given more professional heal to them and the other were just treat as common.If the two groups' doctors
are not the same one ,we reasonable to think that the two groups got different treatment,which contribute to the different result of the study.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the study cited in the analysis does not lent strong support to what the argument maintains.Therefore,if the author had considered the given factors discuss above,the argument would more through and logically acceptable.

tunicateUID: 2722773

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."

提纲：1、服用抗生素并不能排除二次感染（因果关系错误）
      2、两组病人身体情况可能不一样（调查类错误）
      3、两组医生不同，对待患者的情况可能不一样（调查类错误）
字数 445   时间  1个半小时
借鉴了一些模板化的句子 感觉写的有点单薄..


In this argument the author concludes that secondary infection keep patients from healing (keep from doing 指阻止某事发生，显然和你要表达的意思相违) quickly after sever muscle strain. Furthermore zhe（这种错……我无奈了，Word改之吧。。。后面懒得改色了……） author offered an study to substiate （想写的是sustain吧，根据语义……）the conclusion. At the first glance,this argument seems to be convincing but with further reflection the evidences neither constituting a logical statement in support for the conclusion nor providing compelling support making the argument sounded and invulnerable.（一点小建议，像At the first glance这样的连接短语虽然必要，但不用特意放在句首，作为插入语可能会显得更native一些~不那么模板化，划线句好模板呐：>）

The threshold of the problem is that the author assumes that antibiotics could keep the patients from the secondary infections.As all we know antibiotics have a sounded effection to kill the virlus,however,it can't keep the patient from the secondary infections in 100 percents.If so ,hundrends of patient who were killed by the bird flu and H1N1 would be saved their lives by taking the antibiotics.Thus it is not safe to conclude that the first group of patients resume quickly artibuted to away from the secondary infection .It's most likely that the antibiotics has the function to accelerat healing process.Until the author provided further evidence to exclude this factor,it is unfouded to reach the conclusion involved in the argument.（我画上所有的模板句，前面的没有问题，但最后一句可以改改，用同谓语从句说一下conclusion是什么）（其实这段攻击对象是有些问题的，即使不是100%治愈二次感染，只要其效果好于现有方法，就可以采用。——私以为更本质的原因应该是“muscle strain”和“而成感染间没有必然联系”）

The second flaw which weaken the logic of the argument is that the author assume that  two groups of patients are in the same condition.Nevertheless,there is no guarantee that it is a necessarily case and it quite possible that the first group of patients are more stronger than the second group.They heal (语法：用被动语态呐>^<)more quickly than the common even though they don't take antibiotics.An appreciate example is not too far to seek（这里用的就不唐突）,the troops often have to suffer more painfull musclediseases than the common ,but they resume quickly than the normal people ,because they have been trained to get a high quality boby.In short without better evidences to exclude this and other alternative explantation,it is reasonable to cast considerable doubts on the assumption.

The last but not the least important,（直接Last but not least……其他还有很多这种错）even if the author could substiate all the forgoing assumption,his assumption that the two doctors executed the same work except giving the different medichine is unwrranted.As all we know the doctor who specilizes in the sport has more experience to deal with the muscle strain .It's much more possible that the first groups' doctor gived more professional heal to them and the other were just treat as common.If the two groups' doctor is not the same one ,we reasonable to think that the two groups got different treatment,which contribute（很多动词还要考虑） the different result of the study.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the study cited in the analysis does not lent strong support to what the argument maintains.Therefore,if the author had considered the given factors discuss above,the argument would more through and logically acceptable.（喂喂，完全模板了。。。）

Suggestions：
Mainly two——
1、模板句是最保险的，多用无碍，但是一定不能全模板，做些小的改动使他specialized，与argument题干相照应。比如这里Therefore,if the author had considered the given factors（写出是什么） discuss above,the argument would more through and logically acceptable
2、word检查拼写！！！！还有句式和语法……一些词也值得斟酌，但这些后话。减少错别字先~~

最后有个提议——我们组成互改pair怎么样？我几乎没看过模板，逻辑也一般，读你的文收获很大，但相应我上过一年Lexicology，语法和词汇的控制力应该强于你。正好互补之：>

期待回拍~
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1054394-1-1.html




两篇Issue等拍之~

bzr2915UID: 2612029

2# tunicate 没问题 以后你的只要发了我就拍 我是第二组的组长 不如你以后做第二组的题目吧 我们进度好控制~
那个用抗生素排除二次感染的攻击段现在来看确实有点牵强~~·
THX

zhaohanUID: 2595904

第一段的论证会不会有一点极端了。。。不能百分之百杀菌好像不代表不能防止感染。。。
也有可能我最近argue多了，看谁的论证都有嫌疑。。。so 个人观点。。。

bzr2915UID: 2612029

4# zhaohan 恩 现在回来看 这段的攻击确实极端了，有点偏颇的感觉~  O(∩_∩)O谢谢指教

落雪飞花2008UID: 2579536

In this argument the author concludes that secondary infection keep patients from healing quickly after sever muscle strain. Furthermore zhe (the)author offered an study to substiate (substantiate)the conclusion. At the first glance,this argument seems to be convincing but with further reflection the evidences neither constituting a logical statement in support for the conclusion nor providing compelling support making the argument sounded and invulnerable.

The threshold of the problem is that the author assumes that antibiotics could keep the patients from the secondary infections.As all we know antibiotics have a sounded effection to kill the virlusvirus,however,it can't keep the patient from the secondary infections in 100 percents.If so ,hundrends of patient who were killed by the bird flu and H1N1 would be saved their lives by taking the antibiotics.（这句有点强词夺理啊，不如换成The antibiotics have different effects on different virus一类的比较容易接受）Thus it is not safe to conclude that the first group of patients resume quickly artibuted (attributing归功于作定语是吗？)to away from the secondary infection .It's most likely that the antibiotics has the function to accelerat healing process.Until the author provided further evidence to exclude this factor,it is unfouded （unfounded）to reach the conclusion involved in the argument.

The second flaw which weaken(s) the logic of the argument is that the author assume(s) that  two groups of patients are in the same condition.Nevertheless,there is no guarantee that it is a necessarily case and it (is)quite possible that the first group of patients are more stronger than the second group.They heal more quickly than the common even though they don't
take antibiotics.An appreciate example is not too far to seek,the troops often have to suffer more painfull musclediseases than the common ,but they resume quickly than the normal people ,because they have been trained to get a high quality boby.In short without better evidences to exclude this and other alternative explantation,it is reasonable to cast considerable doubts on the assumption.个人感觉这一点有点赘述了。军人这一个例子，放在the first group of patients are stronger ~~~~~后提一下就可以了，没必要说什么他们经过训练了，所以就恢复的快啦。大家都知道是这样的。而且你举这个例子是直接的证明人群中存在健康状况的，而人群中存在健康状况用来证明实验的人群可能不同，所以你这么长的一个例子不过是对你的最终证明论点起一个间接的证明作用，个人觉得太累赘

The last but not the least important,even if the author could substiate （substantiate）all the forgoing assumption,his assumption that the two doctors executed the same work except giving the different medichine is unwrranted.As all we know the doctor who specilizes in the sport has more experience to deal with the muscle strain .It's much more possible that the first groups' doctor gived more professional heal to them and the other were just treat as common.If the two groups' doctor is not the same one ,we reasonable to think that the two groups got different treatment,which contribute the different result of the study.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the study cited in the analysis does not lent strong support to what the argument maintains.Therefore,if the author had considered the given factors discuss above,the argument would more through and logically acceptable.
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1054303-1-1.html欢迎回拍，一起奋斗。我是3月3考。

bzr2915UID: 2612029

6# 落雪飞花2008 谢谢啊 上次写忘改错字了 望原谅。。。已经回拍 ， 拍的不对的地方多多包涵