【夏花绚烂】小组3.31作业argument51

cooldzUID: 2598679

RT~~我马上~~

cherry_mixUID: 2731553

因为我AW时间比较晚，所以今天刚开始写argument，这是第一篇习作，楼下的随便拍，呵呵：）


argument51

In this argument, the arguer attempts to convince us that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should be well recommended to take antibiotics as a part of their treatment. To substantiate this argument, the arguer provides the following factors: (1) secondary infections prevent patients from recuperation quickly after severe muscle strain by a study of two groups of patients. (2) patients who took antibiotics recuperated 40 percent quicker than typically expected. (3) the average recovery time of the group of patients who took sugar pills which they believed is antibiotic was not significantly reduced. As it stands, this argument is unconvincing for several essential flaws.

To begin with, the arguer fails to prove any evidence that patients who are suffering from muscle strain would entirely inevitable to have secondary infection or these patients are apt to have it. Perhaps in this study, the strain of participant happened in their internal parts of body, which would not cause secondary infection at all, or the degree of strain is so light that the infection had already controlled. Without assuring us the fact that patients with muscle strain are certain to have secondary infection, the premise of these argument cannot hold water.

Secondly, the quicker healing time of the group of patients who took antibiotics is little indication that antibiotics can facilitate the treatment. It is absolutely possible that patients who took antibiotics were young men, which have superior recovery ability. Also, it is entirely possible that the group of patients who did not have antibiotics were relatively weaker people whose recuperative time was much slower than those who were healthy. Until the arguer verify that both group of patients were in the same quality, I remain persuaded that antibiotics are effective in the treatment.

Thirdly, even if the participants were all in the same quality of health, the author provides no firm evidence that these two doctors had the same level of treatment. Basically, doctors who specialize in sports medicine are more efficient than general physicians. It is because that they are familiar with muscle problems rather than normal doctor. As a result, patients with muscle strain who were treated by professional sports medicine doctor are utterly possible to heal quicker. If so, this fact would further weaken the result of the study.

Moreover, the arguer fails to provide evidence that sugar pills which the group of patients who did not take antibiotics would not affect the recovery of patients. And h/she also overlooks the fact that antibiotics may have side effect or some patients are allergic with antibiotics.

In sum, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cites in the argument does little strong support to what the arguer offers. To solidify the arguments, the arguer would have to provide the rates of how many patients who suffer from muscle strain are tend to have secondary infection and also offer a scientific ratification. The arguer also should prove that all the healthy quality of patients, level of doctors and other relevant factors are same, and then we would better evaluate the argument.

cooldzUID: 2598679

我的第二段还没展开~~我还没想好~~不过我先在12：00之前传上来~~楼下先帮我简单看看吧。我就先改cherry_mix的了。

In this newsletter the arguer indicates that all patients with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To prove this recommendation the arguer cites a study of two groups of patients showing that one group of patients who are treated by Dr. Newland and took antibiotics recuperated much more quickly than the other group who are treated by Dr. Alton without antibiotics. Close scrutiny of this newsletter, however, I find its conclusion and reasoning are seriously flawed.

In the first place, the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain can not conclude that all patients with muscle strain would take antibiotics.    (条件——>结论,以偏概全~~,我再想想怎么去表述哈)

Second, as the evidence of the hypothesis, the research itself is full of illegibility and fallacy. Granted the two groups do be effective in reflecting that antibiotics can help healing muscle strain, it fails to point out that its effect due to preventing secondary infections. And also, the arguer does not provide any information about the sample of the study, especifically, the randomness and size of the patients. As we know, the fewer patients, the less reliable these study's result. The arguer can not rely on these statistics to make any conclusion. Furthermore, the arguer might also ignore another potential explanations for the different results of two groups—such as the distinction between treatments provided by the two doctors that the Dr. Newland is a specialist in curing muscle strain, or the sugar pills which may have negative effects .Consequently, without accounting for all the other influential factors, the arguer cannot totally convince me that the antibiotic is effective to the patients.

In addition, the arguer assumes too hastily that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Perhaps the patients are allergic to antibiotics, or perhaps the patients are pregnant and therefore can not take antibiotics which may harm the baby. Either scenario, if true, will serve to undermine the arguer's recommendation.

To sum up, the arguer's conclusion about effectiveness of antibiotics in alleviating muscle strain is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the author must provide more reasonable and convincing evidence. Also, the author must compare this treatment with several other available treatments, and can justify that this antibiotic treatment is superior to any other treatment.

drm-33UID: 2759202

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1079808-1-1.html 谢谢大家~

cherry_mixUID: 2731553

4# drm-33

我批改你的吧，你批改小哲的

drm-33UID: 2759202

OK!! 5# cherry_mix

cooldzUID: 2598679

2# cherry_mix


In this argument, the arguer attempts to convince us that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should be well recommended to take antibiotics as a part of their treatment. To substantiate this argument, the arguer provides the following factors: (1) secondary infections prevent patients from recuperation quickly after severe muscle strain by a study of two groups of patients. (2) patients who took antibiotics recuperated 40 percent quicker than typically expected. (3) the average recovery time of the group of patients who took sugar pills which they believed is antibiotic was not significantly reduced.
（几乎是在重复原文，换一下句型，或者简单概括缺点类型就可以了，具体的论述可以放在主题去论述。不过北美范文也有这样风格的，但注意不要简单摘抄原文）As it stands, this argument is unconvincing for several essential flaws.
To begin with, the arguer fails to prove
（证据是提供，provide会更好一些，prove是证明结论）any evidence that patients who are suffering from muscle strain would entirely inevitable to have secondary infection or these patients are apt to have it（sensitive to）. Perhaps in this study, the strain of participant happened in their internal parts of body, which would not cause secondary infection at all, or the degree of strain is so light that the infection had（been） already controlled. Without assuring us the fact that patients with muscle strain are certain to have secondary infection, the premise of these argument cannot
hold water（不错，这个词组我学习了）.

Secondly, the quicker（习惯用less+时间吧） healing time of the group of patients who took antibiotics is little indication that antibiotics can facilitate the treatment. It is absolutely possible that patients who took antibiotics were young men, which have superior recovery ability. Also, it is entirely possible that the group of patients who did not have antibiotics were relatively weaker people whose recuperative time was much slower than those who were healthy. Until the arguer verify that both group of patients were in the same quality, I remain persuaded （被动）that antibiotics are effective in the treatment.


Thirdly, even if the participants were all in the same quality of health, the author provides no firm evidence that these two doctors had the same level of treatment. Basically, doctors who specialize in sports medicine are more efficient than general physicians.（这个本身就是一个猜测，常识上是合情合理的，不过可以加上may之类的词语更严谨，反正只要点出纰漏就可以了）
It is because that they are familiar with muscle problems rather than normal（general） doctor.（可以和上句组成一句） As a result, patients with muscle strain who were treated by professional sports medicine doctor are utterly possible to heal quicker（more quickly）. If so, this fact would further weaken the result of the study.
Moreover, the arguer fails to provide evidence that sugar pills which the group of patients who did not take antibiotics would not affect the recovery of patients. And h/she also overlooks the fact that antibiotics may have side effect or some patients are allergic with antibiotics.
In sum, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cites in the argument does little strong support to what the arguer offers. To solidify the arguments, the arguer would have to provide the rates of how many patients who suffer from muscle strain are（tend 本身就是动词） tend to have secondary infection and also offer a scientific ratification. The arguer also（可以用besides代替also，以免显得重复） should prove that all the healthy quality of patients, level of doctors and other relevant factors are same, and then we would better evaluate the argument.



文笔很流畅~
本文主体结构是按照开头段依次去写的，出的二段前几句是论述假设缺少合理性，其余都是围绕着study的不科学性论述的。就像我链接的的一篇关于arg51的分析说的那样，study不过是这篇newsletter的论据。其假设与结论之间同样存在硬伤，即：可能——》必须，严重患者——》所有患者。

drm-33UID: 2759202

3# cooldz


In this newsletter the arguer indicates that all patients with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To prove this recommendation the arguer cites a study of two groups of patients showing that one group of patients who are treated by Dr. Newland and took antibiotics recuperated much more quickly than the other group who are treated by Dr. Alton without antibiotics. Close scrutiny of this newsletter, however, I find its conclusion and reasoning are seriously flawed.

对原文的概括能力有待加强，你用的词越具体，越显得片面。：） 而且同样的问题出现在指出哪里有错误，也是很含糊地一笔带过。


In the first place, the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain can not conclude that all patients with muscle strain would take antibiotics.    (条件——>结论,以偏概全~~,我再想想怎么去表述哈)

这段自己再去补充完整吧。。。

Second, as the evidence of the hypothesis, the research itself is full of illegibility and fallacy. Granted the two groups do be effective in reflecting that antibiotics can help healing muscle strain, it fails to point out that its effect due to preventing secondary infections. And also, the arguer does not provide any information about the sample of the study, especifically, the randomness and size of the patients. As we know, the fewer patients, the less reliable these study's result. The arguer can not rely on these statistics to make any conclusion. Furthermore, the arguer might also ignore another potential explanations for the different results of two groups—such as the distinction between treatments provided by the two doctors that the Dr. Newland is a specialist in curing muscle strain, or the sugar pills which may have negative effects .Consequently, without accounting for all the other influential factors, the arguer cannot totally convince me that the antibiotic is effective to the patients.

本段的TS没有把具体的错误指出。你的第一个指出的错误是认为在试验中antibiotics能治愈muscle strain，却不能证明能治愈二次感染，但ms原文的意思是这些subject本来就已经muscle strain，在接受防止二次感染的实验吧。。。是不是理解错了？ 这段显得有点乱，没有具体展开每个错误，都是草草略过。

In addition, the arguer assumes too hastily that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Perhaps the patients are allergic to antibiotics, or perhaps the patients are pregnant and therefore can not take antibiotics which may harm the baby. Either scenario, if true, will serve to undermine the arguer's recommendation.



To sum up, the arguer's conclusion about effectiveness of antibiotics in alleviating muscle strain is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the author must provide more reasonable and convincing evidence. Also, the author must compare this treatment with several other available treatments, and can justify that this antibiotic treatment is superior to any other treatment.


最大的问题是没有具体攻击最大的错误，而是把精力花在不那么重要的攻击点上。而且在某些具体表达上，总是太general的表达，觉得没有针对性。：）

drm-33UID: 2759202

1# cooldz



抱歉lz隔了几天帮你改作文哈，实在忙着抽不了身~ 多多指教！