Argument51 马上要考了 求建议 有拍必回

nieyongUID: 2742661

希望各位高手帮忙不吝给点建议哈~~谢谢~

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: 442
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/3/9 17:04:03

In the argument, the author concludes that all patients that are diagnosed with muscle strain are better to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support his conclusion, the author cites the result of a study between two groups of patients who have muscle injuries in contrast. To be honest, the argument seems to be logical enough at the first glance. However, careful examination of the evidences provided reveals that they lend little support to the author's conclusion.


A threshold problem involves the validity of the study. Studies should be statistically reliable. Unfortunately, we find little sign of such procedures of sampling after close scrutiny of the argument, thus doubting whether there is a large enough size of samples to sufficiently draw the author's conclusion. If the author only studied 50 patients who suffered the muscle injuries out of the population of 500 or the quantities of the respondents are different in the two groups, then any evidence obtained from it is untenable. Because the author offers no procedures to rule out such interpretations, the result of the study is insufficient to support the author's conclusion.


Secondly, even assuming the study is statistically reliable; the author fails to notice that the two groups are under the treatment of different doctors. Common sense tells us that the doctors who specialize in sports medicine are usually better at the treatment of muscle injuries compared with the general physician. They learn and experience more in such field. So "40 percent quicker", to some extent, means nothing to the argument.



Furthermore, the control group is given the sugar pills while the other is not. So antibiotics are not the only variable that changes. And because we didn't know exactly the effect of the pills in the study, the author's conclusion is unconvincing.


Last but not the least, the author's conclusion is based on hasty generalization. Even if the preliminary results drawn from the study are correct, it isn't necessary that we advise all the patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics as the auxiliary treatment. As we all know, most of antibiotics have their negative effects, and we should always use antibiotics which apply to the real conditions that differ from persons to persons.


On all accounts, the author's conclusion is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it, the author should cite more details about the two groups to ensure the validity of the study. Moreover, to strengthen the logic of the argument, more evidence should be provided about the doctors and the medicine they use. Finally, to better assess the author's conclusion, we would need more information about the real conditions of the patients.

danhomUID: 2687956

In the argument, the author concludes that all patients that are diagnosed with muscle strain are better to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support his conclusion, the author cites the result of a study between two groups of patients who have muscle injuries in contrast. To be honest, the argument seems to be logical enough at the first glance. However, careful examination of the evidences provided reveals that they lend little support to the author's conclusion.（我觉得在开头能点出各个证据间的关系，还有作者的错误逻辑比较好，不是单纯的列evidence）


A threshold problem involves the validity of the study. (我觉得这点可以和furthermore那点一起说，都是讲调查可信度的)Studies should be statistically reliable. Unfortunately, we find little sign of such procedures of sampling after close scrutiny of the argument, thus doubting whether there is a large enough size of samples to sufficiently draw the author's conclusion. If the author only studied 50 patients who suffered the muscle injuries out of the population of 500 or the quantities of the respondents are different in the two groups, then any evidence obtained from it is untenable. Because the author offers no procedures to rule out such interpretations, the result of the study is insufficient to support the author's conclusion.


Secondly, even assuming the study is statistically reliable; the author fails to notice that the two groups are under the treatment of different doctors. Common sense tells us that the doctors who specialize in sports medicine are usually better at the treatment of muscle injuries compared with the general physician. They learn and experience more in such field. So "40 percent quicker", to some extent, means nothing to the argument.这段还可以举些其他的例子~



Furthermore, the control group is given the sugar pills while the other is not. So antibiotics are not the only variable that changes. And because we didn't know exactly the effect of the pills in the study, the author's conclusion is unconvincing.


Last but not the least, the author's conclusion is based on hasty generalization. （←据说这样的句子叫没有信息量，可以把作者的错误点提一下）Even if the preliminary results drawn from the study are correct, it isn't necessary that we advise all the patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics as the auxiliary treatment. As we all know, most of antibiotics have their negative effects, and we should always use antibiotics which apply to the real conditions that differ from persons to persons.


On all accounts, the author's conclusion is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it, the author should cite more details about the two groups to ensure the validity of the study. Moreover, to strengthen the logic of the argument, more evidence should be provided about the doctors and the medicine they use. Finally, to better assess the author's conclusion, we would need more information about the real conditions of the patients.

呵呵~我也是菜鸟，看了版上一些牛人改的文章，有一点启发.
LZ也可以去看看那些大牛改文章，虽然是别人的，但对自己的借鉴意义还是很大的