Argument51，第一篇，求拍啊，有拍必回，大家互相帮助哈~

鱼肉丸子UID: 2736048

第一篇，没限时，想了好久才写的，不知道可以么，求高人指教，谢谢~

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared ina medical newsletter.
"Doctors have long suspected thatsecondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severemuscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of astudy of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treatedfor muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sportsmedicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Theirrecuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected.Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a generalphysician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they weretaking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantlyreduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would bewell advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."


Before accepting that all patients with muscle strain would be better to take antibiotics,the reasoning in this argument could be questioned fromseveral aspects. The arguer conducts the conclusion from a doctors'hypothesis without considering differentsymptoms and physical conditions between different patients.

A threshold problem with theargument is no information is given about the ailmentsthat the two groups of patients suffered. Was the severity of the injury theysuffered equal? Did they possess the same healthy condition? Did the two groupsof patients have same demographical distribution like gender, age, and race? Perhapsthe patients in first group may be young and vigorous athletes that bear aslightly strain, and patients in the other group may be aged and sick officeclerks that endure a seriously ill. Obviously, those athletes could recover inless time than those clerks. In addition, the qualifications of the doctorsthat treated the two groups of patients are also different. Since every doctorown his unique therapy, even the doctor in first group is sports medicineexpert, while the other is a general physician, it is reasonable that thepatients treated by the former healed faster. Consequently,any discrepancy in the two groups of patients in any of these factors abovementioned will render the experiment result unreliable and worthless.

Granted that the patients and doctors are in possession of equivalent featuresand same abilities, it cannot be simply claim thatantibiotic will promote recover to the patients. Thearguer is failing to consider that some other factors are the result of therecuperation. The sugar pills may have some negative effects on the patients,like conflict with some other medicines, even organic inside human's body,which hamper the convalescence. For that matter,it seems that the antibiotic can accelerate the speed of recover. Without ruling out alternative means of achieving the samegoal, the argument’s conclusion that therecuperation time of the patients treated by antibiotic is significantlyreducedis indefensible.


Even assuming that taking antibiotic is responsible for thefaster restoration of muscle strain for the patients in experiments, the arguer’s assertion that it can berecommended to all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain might nevertheless be unwarranted. The arguer overlookthe fact that not all patients suffered muscle strain will occurred secondaryinfections, thus, the antibiotic, a medicine that cure the secondary infectionswould not be taken for those patients. In addition,the arguer is blind to its side-effect which isharmful to patients. For instance, patients, who are allergic to antibiotic,could not take antibiotic, which make them ill or get a rash. Furthermore, antibiotics could cause a more seriousresult to certain kinds of patients, such as children and pregnant women. Infact, it is because of its damage to growing audition system that children andpregnant women should avoid taking antibiotics. Any ofthese scenarios, if true, would cast considerable doubt on the argument’sconclusion that antibiotic should advise to whole patients who arediagnosed with muscle strain.

After a scrutiny, it isclear that we cannot safely reach the conclusion thatall patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to takeantibiotics as part of their treatment. To make thisargument more convincing the author would have to choose samples morecarefulness. In addition he would have to provide moreinformation about the negative effects of antibiotic. Then the statement could have become logically acceptable.

番茄斗斗UID: 2720914

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared ina medical newsletter.
"Doctors have long suspected thatsecondaryinfections may keep some patients from healing quickly afterseveremuscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminaryresults of astudy of two groups of patients. The first group ofpatients, all being treatedfor muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctorwho specializes in sportsmedicine, took antibiotics regularlythroughout their treatment. Theirrecuperation time was, on average, 40percent quicker than typically expected.Patients in the second group,all being treated by Dr. Alton, a generalphysician, were given sugarpills, although the patients believed they weretaking antibiotics.Their average recuperation time was not significantlyreduced.Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain wouldbewell advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."


Before accepting that all patients with musclestrain would be better to take antibiotics,the reasoning in thisargument could be questioned fromseveral aspects. The arguer conductsthe conclusion from a doctors'hypothesis（hypothesis??题目的论点是建立在一个不科学的实验上，而不仅仅是猜想哦～根据你前面用的动词conduct，你应该是想说experiment？） without consideringdifferentsymptoms and physical conditions between different patients.

A threshold problem with theargument is noinformation is given about the ailments（aiment一般是指小病，用在这里就限定了实验中存在两组病情差异的可能） that the two groups of patientssuffered. Was the severity of the injury theysuffered equal? Did theypossess the same healthy condition? Did the two groupsof patients havesame demographical distribution like gender, age, and race? Perhapsthepatients in first group may be young and vigorous athletes that bearaslightly strain, and patients in the other group may be aged and sickofficeclerks that endure a seriously ill（这里有点牵强，为什么运动员受的伤就会小？与其这样论证，倒不如说直接运动员的复原能力较强）. Obviously, those athletescould recover inless time than those clerks. In addition, thequalifications of the doctorsthat treated the two groups of patientsare also different. Since every doctorown his unique therapy（这句有点chinglish。。）, even（even应当舍去） thedoctor in first group is sports medicine expert, while the other is ageneral physician, it is reasonable（reasonable体现在哪里，要具体论证哦） that thepatients treated by theformer healed faster
. Consequently,any discrepancy in the two groups ofpatients in any of these factors above mentioned will render theexperiment result unreliable and worthless.
这一段的论证不是很流畅和具体，驳论的任务不是说挑出一大推可能就可以了，而是要解释清楚为什么？通常我们的论述会缺乏逻辑性，往往都是没有讲清，以为别人都会明白，就如这一段里的reasonable，之前的句子只是说明了现象，而没有指出现象中的关系，所以突然冒出一句reasonable，就显得有点突兀了

Granted that the patients and doctors are inpossession of equivalent features and same abilities, it cannot besimply claim that antibiotic will promote recover to the patients.The arguer is failing to consider that some other factors are the resultof the recuperation. The sugar pills may have some negative effects onthe patients,like conflict with some other medicines, even organicinside human's body,which hamper the convalescence. For that matter,itseems that the antibiotic can accelerate the speed of recover.（似乎题目没看清哦，Their recuperation time was, on average, 40percent quicker than typically expected，治疗效果是同预期比较的，而不是两组进行比较；其实这组实验有个致命的问题，就是它没有确定两组病人的病情是一致的） Withoutruling out alternative means of achieving the same goal, the argument’sconclusion that therecuperation time of the patients treated byantibiotic is significantlyreducedis indefensible.


Even assuming that taking antibiotic is responsiblefor thefaster restoration of muscle strain for the patients inexperiments, the arguer’s assertion that it canbe recommended to all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strainmight nevertheless be unwarranted. The arguer overlook the fact that notall patients suffered muscle strain will occurred secondaryinfections,thus, the antibiotic, a medicine that cure the secondaryinfectionswould not be taken for those patients（其实这里只要说轻微的病情不需要抗生素即可，这里模棱两可的说those patients不够清楚）. In addition,the argueris blind to its side-effect which is harmful to patients. For instance,patients, who are allergic to antibiotic,could not take antibiotic,which make them ill or get a rash. Furthermore, antibiotics could causea more seriousresult to certain kinds of patients, such as children andpregnant women. Infact, it is because of its damage to growing auditionsystem that children andpregnant women should avoid taking antibiotics.Any ofthese scenarios, if true, would cast considerable doubt on theargument’sconclusion that antibiotic should advise to whole patientswho arediagnosed with muscle strain.

After a scrutiny, it isclear that we cannot safely reach the conclusion thatallpatients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised totakeantibiotics as part of their treatment. To make thisargument moreconvincing the author would have to choose samples more carefulness. Inaddition he would have to provide moreinformation about the negativeeffects of antibiotic. Then the statement could have become logically acceptable.
对于第一篇argu，总的来说还是可以的，不过Lz在用词上，和词性的选择上还是要慎重～