【clover】argument51 习作by cyct

cyctUID: 2728144

貌似很有争议的一道题
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: 424
TIME: 01:19:27
DATE: 2010-2-10 22:19:42

Based upon a preliminary result of a control experiment, the author proves the hypothesis and accordingly suggests that all patients with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, there are several fallacies that the author should also take into account.

Unlike other industry, before a new developed medicine or medical treatment is applied to practical clinical therapy, many other procedures are needed to test its safety and effectiveness, including laboratory testing, animal testing-- if it is necessary-- and pilot testing on a small group of patients. It is comprehensible that the author wants to heal patients using a new medical treatment as soon as possible, however, without though these strict testing, merely depend on a preliminary result of a control experiment, the author can not prove the hypothesis and might even cause some side effects on patients.

Moreover, the control study itself contains several problems that the author does not take into account. Most importantly, two studies are not comparable due to the fact that there are more than one varied factor in this control study. For instance, two different doctors treat the patients using different medicines, which also indicate that the method can not be same. The result of study will be convincing if the study is conducted with treating by same doctor but using those two different medicines. In addition, before the author provides more information about these two studies (e.g. patients' physical conditions, injured conditions, secondary infections conditions and the like), the result itself is still open to question.

Even if the study is reliable, which is conducted by considering all the above mentioned factors, and thus proves the hypothesis, the author still can not using this therapy to all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. Firstly, the physical conditions of different patients are quite different. It is entirely possible that some of them are allergic to antibiotics, which means they must treat by other methods rather than antibiotics. Secondly, it is not reasonable that patients are all treated by antibiotics without considering their injured condition. The hypothesis indicates that only the patients with severs muscle strain will heal quickly taking antibiotics, while is it necessary to other patients with sight one?

In conclusion, before the author advises all patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, stricter testing and studies on patients with different injured conditions are needed to test its effectiveness. After all, only in this way, the author shows his or her responsibility to patients.

taotaoleUID: 2694983

抱歉，改得太晚了……
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."
Based upon a preliminary result of a control experiment, the author proves the hypothesis and accordingly suggests that all patients with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, there are several fallacies that the author should also take into account.开头简洁明快，对原文的改写成功，值得学习。
Unlike other industry, before a new developed medicine or medical treatment is applied to practical clinical therapy, many other procedures are needed to test its safety and effectiveness, including laboratory testing, animal testing-- if it is necessary-- and pilot testing on a small group of patients. It is comprehensible that the author wants to heal patients using a new medical treatment as soon as possible,
（逗号改句号）However, without though these strict testing, merely depending on a preliminary result of a control experiment, the author cannot（拼写的时候不要分开） prove the hypothesis and might even cause some side effects on patients.
这段论证的有些问题：首先，Ts不明。其次，对Argument本身的论证少于你自己的想法—变成写issue的感觉了。应该在说作者是怎样没有证明假设的，你的看法只是可以从解说的过程中涉及。A本身注重的是逻辑分析，而不是你的观点的阐述。还有，这个谬论点并不典型，之前小组会议上是建议要从重头错误开始分析~
Moreover, the control study itself contains several problems that the author does not take into account. Most importantly, two studies are not comparable due to the fact that there are is more than one varied factor in this control study. For instance, two different doctors treat the patients using different medicines, which also indicate that the method cannot be same. The result of +the study will be convincing (不是现在进行时吧~be convinced) if the study is conducted with treating by same doctor but using those two different medicines. In addition, before the author provides more information about these two studies (e.g. patients' physical conditions, injured conditions, secondary infections conditions and the like), the result itself is still open to question.
对于对照试验的质疑，点找得比较全。论证也OK。不过可以更详细点对每个错误加以描述否定会更好。
Even if the study is reliable, which is conducted by considering all the above mentioned factors, and thus proves the hypothesis, the author still can not using this therapy to all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. Firstly, the physical conditions of different patients are quite different. It is entirely possible that some of them are allergic to antibiotics, which means they must treat by other methods rather than antibiotics. Secondly, it is not reasonable that patients are all treated by antibiotics without considering their injured condition. The hypothesis indicates that only the patients with severs muscle strain will heal quickly taking antibiotics,这个假设的理解~是不是已经加上了一个潜在认同是抗生素对二次感染的控制呢？ while is it necessary to other patients with sight是slight吧one?
这里从结论着手来否定~不过是不是再focus结论绝对化上而不是让步上回好些呢？
In conclusion, before the author advises all patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, stricter testing and studies on patients with different injured conditions are needed to test its effectiveness. After all, only in this way, the author shows his or her responsibility to patients.结尾收述全文，重申谬误。
总的而言，文章脉络清晰，已有模板熟练掌握的印记。语言上也较通顺流畅，较少语法错误。但在论证层次和结构上还需进一步强化。