Argument51求指导『有拍必回』还有2天

jjooyyUID: 2704028

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."

The author believes that all patients who have muscle strain should take antibiotics during their treatment. The suggestion is supported by a study of two groups: one group is treated with antibiotics, and another is not. However, there are several fallacies that I would point out as below.

To begin with, the results of two groups cannot be easily compared, since people in two groups are treated with different doctors. As we know, different doctors always have different treatment for patients. From the argument, Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine, while Dr. Alton is a general physician. These two doctors are more likely to carry out different strategies for treating, considering their advantages. And based on this difference, patients in two groups are presumably to have different results about secondary infections, regardless of whether they take antibiotics.

In addition, even assuming that the two groups are facing the same treatment, the study fails to inform us about the severity of patients' muscle strains. The fact how severe their injuries are actually plays an crucial role in the time they heal. Of course, those who have more severe muscle strains would have a longer time healing than others. Since the study do not mention the severity of patients' strains, in all likelihood, the first group might have more severe muscle strains than the patients in the second group. For that matter, it is the severity of their muscle strains, instead of taking antibiotics that affects the time of healing more.

Finally, simply assuming the result of the study is supportive, the fact that only 40 percent of patients in the first group quicker than typically expected, does not necessarily amount to that all patients who have muscle strain would be advisable to take antibiotics during treatment. The 40 percent quicker rate means that not every one can heal faster than normal. Only those who might be secondary infected would benefit. On the other hand, having antibiotics sometimes would have some side effects. Some people even have allergy to antibiotics. In this sense, antibiotics should only be taken to people who are considered likely to have secondary infections.

To conclude, the several fallacies presented above lead the argument untenable. To prove the suggestion is right, the author should present a study that based on two groups, which are exactly in the same conditions except whether they take antibiotics. Additionally, only patients who are likely to be secondary infected are advisable to take antibiotics.

还有2天 argu始终不是很满意这样的状态 昨天停了一天 今天找不到大错了 汗。。

关键是求方向性指导
请问我这样的argu还能在哪里加强一下？还是加强论证吗？
另外，总觉得很有模板的痕迹 无法摆脱 有无方法？

wowoyuweiweiUID: 2754055

The author believes that all patients who have muscle strain should take antibiotics during their treatment. The suggestion is supported by a study of two groups: one group is treated with antibiotics, and another is not. However, there are several fallacies that I would point out as below.

To begin with, the results of two groups cannot be easily compared, since people in two groups are treated with different doctors. As we know, different doctors always have different treatment for patients. From the argument, Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine, while Dr. Alton is a general physician. These two doctors are more likely to carry out different strategies for treating, 可以在强调一下即使是在使用的药品相同的情况下considering their advantages. And based on this difference, patients in two groups are presumably to have different results about secondary infections, regardless of whether they take antibiotics.

In addition, even assuming that the two groups are facing the same treatment, the study fails to inform us about the severity of patients' muscle strains. The fact how severe their injuries are actually plays a crucial role in the time they heal. Of course, those who have more severe muscle strains would have a longer time healing than others. Since the study do not mention the severity of patients' strains, in all likelihood, the first group might have more severe muscle strains than the patients in the second group. （为什么是more server muscle strains？？）For that matter, it is the severity of their muscle strains, instead of taking antibiotics that affects the time of healing more.

Finally, simply assuming the result of the study is supportive, the fact that only 40 percent of patients in the first group quicker than typically expected, does not necessarily amount to that all patients who have muscle strain would be advisable to take antibiotics during treatment. The 40 percent quicker rate means that not every one can heal faster than normal.这个点。。题目中的40%不是人数吧？而是说比一般的回复时间快了40%。。Only those who might be secondary infected would benefit. On the other hand, having antibiotics sometimes would have some side effects. Some people even have allergy to antibiotics. In this sense, antibiotics should only be taken to people who are considered likely to have secondary infections.

To conclude, the several fallacies presented above lead the argument untenable. To prove the suggestion is right, the author should present a study that based on two groups, which are exactly in the same conditions except whether they take antibiotics. Additionally, only patients who are likely to be secondary infected are advisable to take antibiotics.

Argu 的关键是能不能找出逻辑的错误，并合理的指出修正，模板这个不是很严重。
其次，如果你说还有什么大错的话，我想是试验中只有sugar  pills， 也许其他的反而会比antibiotics更有效。
考试的时候要认真审题目！关键的字不要打错
加油：）