argument-51.....第一次写.....大家帮帮忙啦～

yvaine.jUID: 2755389

Argument—51

In the newsletter the author establishes a correlation between thespeed of recuperation and antibiotics. By conducting a relevant study of twogroups of patients, the author concludes that antibiotics are very effective incuring severe muscle strain and should be recommended to all patients who aresuffering from muscle illness. The whole process of his or her statement seemsquite reasonable. However, it is obvious that some problems are existing thatmake the whole reasoning process unconvincing.


To begin with, the author shows us the preliminary results of astudy as the first evidence to support his or her point of view. As is known toall, if a study is used as a piece of convincing evidence, how the study isconducted is the basis that must be analyzed, which may include whether therespondents are representative and how broad it is. While in the newsletter, thereis no evidence to show how scientific the study is during its conducting; onlytwo groups of patients as respondents also making the sample too small, whichmake the results acting as evidence weak and unpersuasive. Moreover, theresults used by the author in the newsletter is preliminary, it is probablythat the final results of this study do not accord with the preliminary ones, which weakens this piece of evidence further.


Even if the information obtained from the study is believable, theauthor indicates that quicker recuperation should be attributed to the usage ofantibiotics is not reasonable. There is no evidence to show that two groups ofpatients are under the same condition during their treatment except that onegroup is given antibiotics while the other one not. Maybe the factors that acceleratethe recuperation can be many other things but not antibiotics such as eatinghabits, medical environment and so on. If the author cannot rule out all thesefactors, the causality between the speed of recuperation and antibioticsestablished by him or her is quite doubtful. As a result, the final conclusiondrawn from the study cannot convince me at all.


Finally, the author recommends antibiotics to all patients who aresuffering from muscle strain, whether the symptom is severe or not. The authorignored that the condition mentioned in the hypothesis is that secondary infectionsafter severe muscle strain may be the cause of extending the healing time. It ispossible that patients with slight symptom and having no trouble with secondaryinfections do not have to take antibiotics as part of their treatment; eventaking antibiotics may have side effects to do harm to patients. Therefore, it istoo hasty for the author to state the recommendation without considering thevariety of conditions.


          In sum,the author uses insufficient evidence to establish a problematic causality anddraws doubtful conclusion from the facts. Before making any recommendationabout the recuperation and antibiotics, it is proper for the author to evaluatedifferent conditions of the patients suffering from muscle strain and convincethe readers that antibiotics indeed lead to the quicker recuperation.

ella_dylUID: 2595060

1# yvaine.j
In the newsletter the author establishes a correlation between the speed of recuperation and antibiotics. By conducting a relevant study of two groups of patients, the author concludes that antibiotics are very effective in curing severe(没说severe啊，这还是一个攻击点呢) muscle strain and should be recommended to all patients who are suffering from muscle illness. The whole process of his or her statement seems quite reasonable. However, it is obvious that some problems are existing that make the whole reasoning process unconvincing.

To begin with, the author shows us the preliminary results of a study as the first evidence to support his or her point of view. As is known to all, if a study is used as a piece of convincing evidence, how the study is conducted is the basis that must be analyzed, which may include whether the respondents are representative and how broad it is. While in the newsletter, there is no evidence to show how scientific the study is during its conducting; only two groups of patients as respondents also making(谓语动词呢？) the sample too small, which make(只是非限制性定语从句吧？第三人称单数？) the results acting as evidence weak and unpersuasive. Moreover, the results used by the author in the newsletter is preliminary, it is probably that the final results of this study do not accord with the preliminary ones, which weakens this piece of evidence further.

Even if the information obtained from the study is believable, the author indicates that quicker recuperation should be attributed to the usage of antibiotics is not reasonable(两个谓语动词，需要用从句). There is no evidence to show that two groups of patients are under the same condition during their treatment except that(这里用in that吧？) one group is given antibiotics while the other one not. Maybe the factors that accelerate the recuperation can be many other things but not antibiotics such as eating habits, medical environment and so on. If the author cannot rule out all these factors, the causality between the speed of recuperation and antibiotics established by him or her is quite doubtful. As a result, the final conclusion drawn from the study cannot convince me at all.

Finally, the author recommends antibiotics to all patients who are suffering from muscle strain, whether the symptom is severe or not. The author ignored that the condition mentioned in the hypothesis is that secondary infections after severe muscle strain may be the cause of extending the healing time. It is possible that patients with slight symptom and having no trouble with secondary infections do not have to take antibiotics as part of their treatment; (这里要说别的了，可以另起一句)even taking antibiotics may have side effects to do harm to patients. Therefore, it is too hasty for the author to state the recommendation without considering the variety of conditions.

In sum, the author uses insufficient evidence to establish a problematic causality and draws doubtful conclusion from the facts. Before making any recommendation about the recuperation and antibiotics, it is proper for the author to evaluate different conditions of the patients suffering from muscle strain and convince the readers that antibiotics indeed lead to the quicker recuperation.

首先感谢楼主拍我的文章，有关seriousness的问题其实根本就是个用词错误了，谢谢。
有关你说的错误因果，其实我的文章中除最后一个点以外始终是围绕你说的展开的，因为我觉得study就是这个错误因果的支持证据，把它说明白了，错误因果自然也不攻自破了。
有关楼主的文章，我觉得有个问题就是你的点不太容易写深，其实第一个点有关study ponders，个人认为攻击样本大小话会显得比较浅，其它问题还有很多，也似乎更容易展开。
关于这个题的分析建议看一下这个帖子https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=419002
还有嘛，就是语法上的基本问题还是要注意
就这些了，不当之处处望见谅

yvaine.jUID: 2755389

啊～非常感谢～