argument51 【big fish】习作---by tc1220

tc1220UID: 2585174

In this medical newsletter, it is reported that the hypothesis that secondary infections may prevent some patients from healing after severe muscle strain has been verified by preliminary study. This study is made by comparison between two groups, one is fed by antibiotics throughout the treatment. However, the other group is regarded as a controlled group and treated by the placebo which is actually sugar pill. By comparing the recuperation time, a conclusion is made that antibiotics could be used in the treatment of muscle strain. In several respects, however, flaws are found for supporting this argument.

To begin with, the study is based on a comparison experiment that aims to distinguish the effect influenced by different factor. For such controlled experiment, all other aspects should be kept constant while only one variable. Unfortunately, these two experiments are done by two different Doctors with different professions. Even if the specifications and other instructions are satisfied, the environment is different, which could be considered as the fault of the controlled experiment. In addition, the study doesn't specify the people’s condition in the group. Probably inequality occurs the people in two groups in terms of ages, health and sex. For example, one group consists of children, whereas the other group is made up of elders. Or perhaps one group suffers bad health while people in the second group are robust. If it is true, the result does not make sense. At last, the sample number is not stated clearly. Perhaps groups are sampled without sufficient data, which implies the invalidity of the experiments.

Furthermore, the assertion that antibiotics are effective for treating muscle strain only relies on the recuperation time. As we all known that goodness should be determined from all aspects with balance. However, in this study, the recuperation time becomes the only indicator that judges the effectiveness of the antibiotics. Obviously, it commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. For instance, patients may get some aside effects like headache during recuperation. Before clearly indicated, author cannot make such conclusion confidently. What’s more, the likelihood may even happen that the antibiotics may become the secondary infections that contribute to the healing of the muscle strain, which completely contradicts the hypothesis to be proved.

Last but not the least, the study appears no causal relationship between the hypothesis and the verification. Specifically, in the controlled experiment, no other additives are added to the patient so that they could be treated as secondary infections. In fact, what the experiment only focus on the research about the effectiveness of the antibiotics. Even if all the experiments are conducted correctly, the study only could be used to indicate the effect of antibiotics instead of the so called “secondary infections”. Therefore, hypothesis cannot be proved simply by this study.

In summary, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. Basically, the experiment should be done under the same condition. And the evidence should be provided that no other aside effects after antibiotics are treated. Finally, secondary infection should be made in one group in order to verify the suspicion.

rachelwang712UID: 2757860

In this medical newsletter, it is reported that the hypothesis that secondary infections may prevent some patients from healing after severe muscle strain has been verified by preliminary study. This study is made有些粗糙的选词哦，会影响你的表达 by comparison between two groups, one is fed同前 by antibiotics throughout the treatment. However, the other group is regarded as a controlled group and treated by the placebo which is actually sugar pill. By comparing the recuperation time, a conclusion is made that antibiotics could be used in the treatment of muscle strain. In several respects, however, flaws are found for supporting this argument. To begin with, the study is based on a comparison experiment that aims to distinguish the effect influenced by different factor.从中文来说我还能理解，但是如果从英文角度，我觉得表达地可以再清楚一点 For such controlled experiment, all other aspects should be kept constant while only one variable. Unfortunately, these two experiments are done by two different Doctors with different professions. Even if the specifications and other instructions are satisfied,有些中式英语了 the environment is different, which could be considered as the fault of the controlled experiment. In addition, the study doesn't specify the people’s condition in the group. Probably inequality occurs the people in two groups in terms of ages, health and sex. For example, one group consists of children, whereas the other group is made up of elders. Or perhaps one group suffers bad health while people in the second group are robust. If it is true, the result does not make sense. At last, the sample number is not stated clearly.这句话does not make sense Perhaps groups are sampled without sufficient data, which implies the invalidity of the experiments.这一点也是我驳倒的，你也说的很有道理，点也踩得好，但是表达方面我觉得有些不够地道哦。比如满足条件，应该不是用satisfy，而是用meet比较好。 Furthermore, the assertion that antibiotics are effective for treating muscle strain only relies on the recuperation time. As we all known that goodness should be determined from all aspects with balance. However, in this study, the recuperation time becomes the only indicator that judges the effectiveness of the antibiotics. Obviously, it commits a fallacy of hasty generalization.我到这里没有很明白你要驳倒的这一点是？ For instance, patients may get some aside effects like headache during recuperation. 到这里我终于懂了。其实这一点很好啊，但是可以再考虑一下如何恰当精炼地表达Before clearly indicated, author cannot make such conclusion confidently. What’s more, the likelihood may even happen that the antibiotics may become the secondary infections that contribute to the healing of the muscle strain, which completely contradicts the hypothesis to be proved. Last but not the least传说中XDF老师强烈建议不要用的恶。。。虽然没有科学研究证明是不好, the study appears no causal到底casual还是不casual relationship between the hypothesis and the verification. Specifically, in the controlled experiment, no other additives are added to the patient so that they could be treated as secondary infections.我不是很能理解这句话 In fact, what the experiment only focus on the research about the effectiveness of the antibiotics. Even if all the experiments are conducted correctly, the study only could be used to indicate the effect of antibiotics instead of the so called “secondary infections”. Therefore, hypothesis cannot be proved simply by this study. In summary, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. Basically, the experiment should be done under the same condition. And the evidence should be provided that no other aside effects after antibiotics are treated. Finally, secondary infection should be made in one group in order to verify the suspicion.这个结尾最好再加上建议

missingusaUID: 2625832

请lz注意正确的发帖格式, 相关内容可以参考这个帖子:
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1042201

修改完后, 请通过站内短消息pm我一下, 谢谢^^

tc1220UID: 2585174

多谢 rachelwang712 的点评~~ 我会注意的~~~~
BTW， 为什么不能用 Last but not the least,
但如果我想再最后表达 十分重要，那改用什么呢？

多些版主，让斑竹费心了