Argument51 处女作求狠拍 有拍必回

zoeyczUID: 2621425

新春快乐！
这里是我的第一篇习作，用word已经检查过一遍，提笔写的时候果然还是遇到不少问题。
希望大家对存在的各种问题，不吝赐教，狠狠地拍，底子正才不会走偏道么。

废话不多说，先上题目及文，文后有写的过程中的一些疑问。先谢过大家的一片热忱！


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: 446
TIME: 01:35:56
DATE: 2010-2-23 14:40:40

Author suggests that antibiotics should betaken into the treatment of muscle strain in this newsletter. Though as if well-presented, the argument is not well-reasoned. It is based on unsubstantiated premise that secondary infections may prolong the healing process from severe muscle strain. He should provide more sound proofs and logical inductions to convince me the suggestion is reasonable.

First of all, author's conclusion is based on a hypothesis. In order to verify it, the author presents a study here. But whether this study can support the hypothesis under discussion now is questionable. It is clearly stated that the patients in the study is treated for muscle injuries, which is falsely equated to muscle strain by author. As a matter of fact, muscle injuries includes more than muscle strain, say wound for example. Therefore, the patients of muscle strain may only count for a very small percentage of the whole patients engaged in the study here. And antibiotics do make a difference in the treatment of muscle injuries other than muscle strain, so the preliminary results show a difference. However, this by no means substantiates what the hypothesis claims.

On the other hand, even if muscle injuries could be equal to muscle strain, how the study is carried out is doubtful. The two control groups in this test are treated by different people, one is a doctor specialized in sports medicine, while the other is a general physician.It is very likely that the specialist has more experienced in this field and gives some other efficient suggestions and introduces less secondary infections in treatment to his patients that actually speed up the healing rather than antibiotics. Or maybe the title, a specialized in sports medicine, itself works as a kind of placebo to the patients and makes them more confident and optimistic thus accelerate the healing. Without ruling out such possibilities,the preliminary results in the study will be untenable to support the hypothesis.

Last but not the least, author takes it for granted that antibiotics works for secondary infections. With such conception,he infers without induction that if the hypothesis, secondary infections prolong healing process, is valid, antibiotics should be prescribed. However,chances are that secondary infections in muscle strain may contain some certain biotic that won't be impacted by any antibiotics available now. Thus even the hypothesis is validated, author's suggestion is still useless.

In all, author of this medical newsletter fails to assure me that use of antibiotics is both available and effective in treatment of muscle strain. Loss of evidence shows the study here can support the hypothesis, while logical induction is loose. Such assumption is indefensible to any close scrutiny.



其他问题：
1. 对于argument，如果追求高分，是不是错误要至少挑出3处以上才够？
2. 对于本文最后攻击一点，这个攻击个人感觉牵强，想请问高手，在文章只能瘪出前两点的情况下，加上这一段能略微充实还是反而画蛇添足了？
3. 对于本文题目中的secondary infection感觉有几种理解，肌肉拉伤后的连带受伤、治疗过程中的间接感染，如果考试时不能肯定ETS出题到底是哪种意思，应该怎么处理？把自己的理解在文中诠释，还是尽可能回避。
4. 在word中输入本文时，‘Thus even the hypothesis is validated,’ 出现绿色下划线，建议‘validated;’，请问是什么原因。
5. 除了文中问题求板砖外，若能改善部分用语表达等，亦热烈欢迎。尤爱往死里拍着！

zoeyczUID: 2621425

真诚求拍！

zoeyczUID: 2621425

正文中由于贴上来的格式错误已经重新调整了，跪求狠拍！

PigwidgeanUID: 2759931

"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: 446
TIME: 01:35:56
DATE: 2010-2-23 14:40:40

Author (The author) suggests that antibiotics should be taken into the treatment of muscle strain in this newsletter. Though as if well-presented, the argument is not well-reasoned. It is based on (+a) unsubstantiated premise that secondary infections may prolong the healing process from severe muscle strain. He should provide more sound proofs and logical inductions to convince me the suggestion is reasonable.
ARGU里面用me不是很恰当吧，试试we可能能使你的文章更有客观性和说服力。
另外那些Little flaws虽然不是重点，不过平时还是多注意一下的好。冠词问题在以下几段不予再提。
关于argu文章的开头有很多家的说法，至少有一种是说要把作者的逻辑分析过程体现出来的。在这里作者的逻辑经过提炼就应该是(1)+(2)—>(3)
其中，1）二次感染能够阻止病人快速恢复；2）study的结果说明抗生素能够使病人快速恢复。3）肌肉拉伤病人应该服用抗生素。
在楼主的开头段中提到了1和3，但是忽略了2，从某种程度来讲逻辑不够完整，甚至会被认为并没有理解理清作者的分析思路。在我的习作中则犯了相反的错误，开头段写得太详细以至于逻辑虽然完整但是不够清晰，把具体实验过程略去以后则好一些。与LZ共勉~^^


First of all, author's conclusion is based on a hypothesis. In order to verify it, the author presents a study here. But whether this study can support the hypothesis under discussion now is questionable. It is clearly stated that the patients in the study is treated for muscle injuries, which is falsely equated to muscle strain by author. As a matter of fact, muscle injuries includes more than muscle strain, say wound for example. Therefore, the patients of muscle strain may only count for a very small percentage of the whole patients engaged in the study here. And antibiotics do make a difference in the treatment of muscle injuries other than muscle strain, so the preliminary results show a difference. However, this by no means substantiates what the hypothesis claims.
红线句子：抗生素对其他肌肉受伤的治疗有帮助，这个也只是可能吧，楼主的语气过于肯定了。反过来也可以驳你想当然的。

On the other hand, even if muscle injuries could be equal to muscle strain, how the study is carried out is doubtful. The two control groups in this test are treated by different people, (of whom) one is a doctor specialized in sports medicine, while the other is a general physician. It is very likely that the specialist has more experienced (->experience) in this field and gives some other efficient suggestions and introduces less secondary infections in treatment to his patients that actually speed up the healing rather than antibiotics. Or maybe the title, a specialized in sports medicine, itself works as a kind of placebo to the patients and makes them more confident and optimistic thus accelerate(s) the healing. Without ruling out such possibilities, the preliminary results in the study will be untenable to support the hypothesis.

Last but not the least, author takes it for granted that antibiotics works for secondary infections. With such conception, he infers without induction that if the hypothesis, secondary infections prolong healing process, is valid, antibiotics should be prescribed. However, chances are that secondary infections in muscle strain may contain some certain biotic that won't be impacted by any antibiotics available now. Thus even the hypothesis is validated, author's suggestion is still useless.

In all, author of this medical newsletter fails to assure me that use of antibiotics is both available and effective in treatment of muscle strain. Loss of evidence shows the study here can support the hypothesis, while logical induction is loose. Such assumption is indefensible to any close scrutiny.



其他问题：
1. 对于argument，如果追求高分，是不是错误要至少挑出3处以上才够？
2. 对于本文最后攻击一点，这个攻击个人感觉牵强，想请问高手，在文章只能瘪出前两点的情况下，加上这一段能略微充实还是反而画蛇添足了？
3. 对于本文题目中的secondary infection感觉有几种理解，肌肉拉伤后的连带受伤、治疗过程中的间接感染，如果考试时不能肯定ETS出题到底是哪种意思，应该怎么处理？把自己的理解在文中诠释，还是尽可能回避。
4. 在word中输入本文时，‘Thus even the hypothesis is validated,’ 出现绿色下划线，建议‘validated;’，请问是什么原因。
5. 除了文中问题求板砖外，若能改善部分用语表达等，亦热烈欢迎。尤爱往死里拍着！

回上述问题：
1.有建议说是3个，因为2个显得太少而4个又啰嗦。
2.非高手飘过~
3.个人觉得这个可以回避，你主要的任务是攻击逻辑错误。
4.把is去掉……不然就改分号。
5.见文中。

zoeyczUID: 2621425

4# Pigwidgean

想知道冠词和其他语法类错误，有没有一些word以外更好的软件可以自动提示错误？
谢谢！