【1010G精英组】ISSUR&ARGU 习作——by Group Choice

lxklysUID: 2738043

argu51----by lxklys
51The 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."
第一层次：二次感染妨碍迅速康复
理由：选取两组人做对照试验，分别给不同的药品，一组抗生素，一组糖丸，并由不同专家照看
第二层次：抗生素应适合所有人做辅助治疗
理由：给抗生素吃的组康复得更快
This argument in a medical newsletter presents that those secondary infections may retard the speed of patients’ recuperation after severe muscle strain just resulting from a study of 2 groups, in which the ones selected are treated with two medications by 2 doctors separately, one specializing in sports and the other a general man. Then the letter states by expressing the results from the experiment, that all muscle-strain patients should take antibiotics as part of treatment. Nevertheless, in my view, the author fails to prove the two conclusions with the elements he adopts above.

Firstly, the given proof, a result of study in the letter, do little help for the author’s opinion about the secondary infections’ side effects indeed, unless we are told the patients selected in one group are suffering from the secondary infections. However, the experiment the author cites doesn’t involve it. As a result, the conclusion about the secondary infections, drew in the statement, fails to be substantiated for lacking enough evidence.

Secondly, it’s necessary to evaluate the evidence of a study by considering how it was conducted. Often the controlled experiment, a research containing 2 groups—a treatment one and a control one—is constrained by the differences from particular context or situation in which they were conducted and this limits the effects of the result. Hence, that discrepancy of the patients in 2 groups may have an influence on it. For example, the 1st group may contain much younger, healthier ones than the other so they can revive more quickly. And, the differences of doctors, a specialist and a generalist may bring about 2 kinds of feelings to the patients. For example, people usually think the special one can cure more effectively, so they may be more positive to cooperate with the doctor, which do help recovery sooner. So, the 2 factors referred to above can do intervene the effects of the antibiotics are produced only by the drug itself. Anyway, the evidences fail to verify the statement involves in antibiotics’ function the author makes.

Finally, maybe the ones selected of these 2 groups can’t be representative for all the patients in general, for the sensibility of us to the drug varies from one to another. For example, we always make a test on skin before injected some antibiotics such as penicillin to ensure whether we will respond acutely. As a consequence of individually diversity, even if the patients in the experiment are all immune to this one, it fails to deny the side impact it may have on others. Without considering this, however, it may conduct a serious aftermath even death when the antibiotics applied generally.

In sum, the speaker’s argument fails to explain that the secondary infections retard the patients’ recuperation, verify the antibiotics’ function for these selected ones, and either substantiate the appliance can be amplified for the general. The argument could be strengthened by providing evidence that the experiment really totally eliminates other factors may intervene the drug’s effects, and illustrate about the patients’ information. Anyway, I could not accept the argument above.

xingfuhbjUID: 2769976

第三次作业 ARUGUMENT 51：

作者观点
1．一组肌肉拉伤的人 吃抗生素→康复期平均比通常预期的快40％
2．另一组肌肉拉伤的人 吃糖丸→平均康复时间没有明显缩短
3．抗生素能治疗感染
→→1.+2.+3.+共同推出: 感染影响了康复速度,抗生素可以治疗感染,加快康复速度→→→所有肌肉拉伤的病人都应该吃抗生素来治疗
反对观点
1．两组病人的身体状况是不是差别不大
2．没有排除其他可能对治疗产生影响的因素,如医生治疗方式,水平.
3．不能直接由局部推整体让所有病人都吃,还要考虑副作用等问题.
1+2+3共同推出: 作者的观点不能成立,不能直接建议所有肌肉拉伤的病人都吃抗生素治疗

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------
Grounding on the fact that antibiotics can fight infections，then synthesizing the
preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients, the arguer deduced that it was secondary infection that keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and suggested all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain have to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

However, it is apparently unscientific to get the assertion without the guarantee that the patients in two groups are of the similar conditions, which include age, career, health conditions, and the number of each groups and so on. The premises of an scientific study requires the basic elements of a rigorous biological test including “hypothesis”、 “unitary variable”、”experimental and control group”, which also the three basic principle of a biological test, and we can easily tell that the study above involves everything except the “unitary variable”. The principle of “unitary variable” lay emphasis on the exclusion of “irrelevant variable” which could cause “extraneous variable”, suppressing interference while verifying hypothesis. What if the patients in the first group are vigorous juvenile while that of another group are weary middle-aged or even oldster? And what about a possibility that the patients in he first group are the first time to suffer from severe muscle strain while the patients in the second group was injured for many times? Can we still reason enough to support the hypothesis that it is secondary infections that keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain?
Even the conditions of patients in two groups are similar enough to suppress the interference. We still have other irrelevant variables such as the skill of the doctor in two groups, and the ways the doctors used to cure patients may differ too. As the study tells, the patients in first group were being treated by a doctor who specializes in sports medicine while the attending doctor of second group was a general physician. According to the apparently difference on the attending doctor, we are reason enough to suppose the treatment of the two doctors may differ to, which would be responsible for the different recovery time of patients in two groups instead of the secondary infections. What’s more, although received the same treatment, the patients may have different psychological reaction to the technical level of the doctor. It’s likely that the patients in the first group tend to have more faith in recovering quickly because their attending doctor was more specialized.
Anyway, even the study was followed the principle of “unitary variable”, it was still not reason enough to suggest all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Every medicine gave to the patients should endure test for millions of times, especially those could cause some side effects including the antibiotics. As a matter of fact, antibiotics could cause severe allergic reaction, and the abuse of antibiotics could lead to aplastic anemia or hemolytic anemia, and drug resistance which could let a common cold steal your life.
In sum, every scientific conclusion should be based on the strict experiment. And we do need more research and consideration to use antibiotics so commonly.

toywangUID: 2700880

D.N（运动医生）用抗生素-----》比预期快40%】
                                                                                            】————》   用抗生素-----》加快速度-----》防止二次感染
D.A（普通医生）用糖片代替-----》未缩短    】      
                                                                                                                                                   
隐含假设：不用抗生素-----》 速度减慢---------》二次感染 重点攻击
1 study的过程中除了使用antibiotics和sugar pills意外，由于两位医生specialized在不同领域，一定在治疗过程中存在某些其他的手段做辅助。尤其作为N是运动专家更有其他手段，for example massotherapy
blabla， 因而抗生素之占了一部分因素，甚至没有因素。

2即使只用了抗生素，那也不能得出结论，这种快速康复只是便面的，是否有影响到身体其他机能的作用没有考虑。40%快，不代表healed了。
3 攻击假设



This speaker wants to prove the suspect of doctors by a study about whether antibiotic can raise the speed of healing. The result has many flaws both in the survey and in logical. First, the survey conducted is lack of overall consideration. In addition, the function and side effect of antibiotic need to be examined. The biggest problem is laid on that
the speaker suppose that the raise of speed can prevent secondary infection and directly regard that antibiotics can function. This logical is totally confused.

In evaluation the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted. So the flaws in the survey cannot be neglected, otherwise the conclusion will not be creditable. The 25 patients chosen by the each group are which suffer severe muscle strain, however, on evidence shows that what cause the sickness and even do not claim that they were secondary infection or not. And the speaker also fails to rule out the patients who still diagnosed with other disease. So the conclusion is not representative. Based on these doubtable premises, the extent from 50 patient to all are more incredible. After the discussion about patients, there are still many flaws in the aspect of doctors. Dr. Newland and Dr. Alton are specialized in different fields, the former one is specialized in sports medicine, in contrast, the later is a general physician. Muscle strain is regularly happens in sport activities, and the doctor focus on sport medicine must have more skills such as massage and more experience to cure these sort of diseases. However, as a general physician, he or she can only cure the disease through a general way without using any auxiliaries. According to these factors, the speakers cannot own the raise of 40 percent of speed only to antibiotics.

Even if we assume that only antibiotics function in the process of treatment and without any other skills to assistant it. The conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be advised to use antibiotics is not accepted. The so called 40 percent quicker is just statics in speed, there is no proof to show that muscle strain is totally healed and will never happen again. The speaker also lack of the consideration about the function of antibiotics. No survey can elaborate there is no side effects will happen to patients or whether these side effects will do harm to patients or not.

What comes last is that the speaker assumes that if the treatment conducted in typical way, the speed is not raised by 40 percent, patients will get secondary infection. It was totally confused. Are the patients who do not receive any antibiotic treatment in the past are all diagnosed with secondary infection? Of course not. It clearly shows that what lead to a secondary infection do not has directly connection with speed, and the use of antibiotic cannot effectively reduce the odds been infected twice.


Based on the discussion above, the flaws made by the speaker are elaborated clearly. The suspect hold by doctors still cannot be proved by the study which is not explains very well. More attention should be paid on what are the real factors that made some patients are infected twice despite of the only concern about speed.

elevenkarUID: 2791267

This argument in a medical newsletter presents that those secondary infections may retard the speed of patients’ recuperation after severe muscle strain just resulting from a study of 2 groups, in which the ones selected are treated with two medications by 2 doctors separately, one specializing in sports（我当时做的时候都没注意到！确实一个主攻运动损伤一个是一般医生的前提假设也很重要） and the other a general man. Then the letter states by expressing the results from the experiment, that all muscle-strain patients should take antibiotics as part of treatment. （好句啊！）Nevertheless, in my view, the author fails to prove the two conclusions with the elements he adopts above.（这一段写的惊艳！）
Firstly, the given proof, a result of study in the letter, do little help for the author’s opinion about the secondary infections’ side（替换成negative更地道） effects indeed, unless we are told
语法错误the patients selected in one group are suffering from the secondary infections （我不同意你这样说呀！如果你要表达的意思是设置一个有过二次感染的对照组的话，那么糖丸和抗生素的参照元素起到了什么效果呢？我的观点是让步一下，说就算我承认你说的那两个组就是有过二次感染的组吧，然后再多增加一个control group，其中的patients suffering from the secondary infections并且什么都不给。这样所有的变量因素都被考虑进去了）However, the experiment the author可能是打错了吧 cites doesn’t involve it. As a result, the conclusion about the secondary infections, drew in the statement, fails to be substantiated for lacking enough evidence.
Secondly, it’s necessary to evaluate the evidence of a study by considering how it was conducted. Often the controlled experiment, a research containing 2 groups—a treatment one and a control one—is constrained by the differences from particular context or situation in which they were conducted and this limits the effects of the result.（写的很好，哈哈，就是有点套模板的痕迹）
Hence, that discrepancy of the patients in 2 groups may have an influence on it. For example, the 1st group may contain much younger, healthier ones than the other so they can revive more quickly. And, the differences of doctors, a specialist and a generalist may bring about 2 kinds of feelings to the patients. For example,
（俩个了
删一个吧）people usually think the special one can cure more effectively, so they may be more positive to cooperate with the doctor, which do help recovery sooner（好像没有这个用法
要不改成：accelerate the recovering speed）. So, the 2 factors referred to above can do intervene the effects of the antibiotics are produced only by the drug itself. Anyway, the evidences fail to verify
(好词儿，学了)the statement involves in antibiotics’ function the author makes.
Finally, maybe the ones selected of these 2 groups can’t be representative for all the patients in general, for the sensibility of us to the drug varies from one to another. For example, we always make a test on skin before injected some antibiotics such as penicillin to ensure whether we will respond acutely. As a consequence of individually diversity, even if the patients in the experiment are all immune to this one, it fails to deny the side impact it may have on others. Without considering this, however, it may conduct a serious aftermath even death when the antibiotics applied generally. （如果按照我前面针对你正文第一段的改法来写，那么这一段其实在我设置对照组时就提到了负面影响的问题。这一段就可以攻击其他类型的错误，比如结论中说是任何的肌肉损伤，前提假设是严重的肌肉损伤，显然有问题）
In sum, the speaker’s argument fails to explain that the secondary infections retard the patients’ recuperation, verify the antibiotics’ function for these selected ones, and either substantiate the appliance can be amplified for the general. The argument could be strengthened by providing evidence that the experiment really totally eliminates other factors may intervene the drug’s effects, and illustrate about the patients’ information. Anyway, I could not accept the argument above.（你的首尾段都写得超棒！）
无论如何都会掉色！我整了很久还是无解。lxylys同学如果你看到后想看彩色版的~q我，我传给你
另外到底怎么样才能不掉色呢，同志们帮帮忙吧

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

In this notion the medical newsletter supported all the patients to take antibiotics as a part of their treatment when they are diagnosed with muscle strain. This newsletter used a study leaded by two different professors to demonstrate(好词) its validity. However it can be evidently found the logical flaw as flow: (1) the obscure description of the study which contains two groups. (2) The ambiguous medical episteme. (3) The discursion process of（这里的of 换成between会不会更好一点呢？） hypothesis and conclusion.

To start with, there are two manifest ambiguity of the study description. Firstly, the author does not inform us about the severity of injuries, physical conditions of the two groups of patients. More specifically: those two samples only tell us that patients do have muscle injuries, which cannot prove that the hypothesis based on the patients who suffered from severe muscle strain. And it also fail to inform us any information about whether those patients had had（这里两个had的连用有点感觉怪怪的）
encountered secondary even tertius(用词十分强大) infections. And, the reporter missed another crucial element that in spite of taking antibiotics what is the different therapy method applied by different groups? If the first group been used Chinese traditional medical means such as needle therapy and the second group wasn’t be（这里用定语从句会否更好呢？ Which is not included in the treatment of second group）, how can we conclude that the accelerated（熟练运用了GRE词汇，十分羡慕啊） period of average recuperation is created by（用resulted from 应该会更准确吧） antibiotics?

Secondly, this statement hasn’t mention about any linking of secondary infections and antibiotics, as well as the negative effect s of taking Sugar pills or antibiotics on the healing of the second group of patients.

Thirdly, even if we assume all the patients involved in the research had severe muscle strain and doctors endeavor to（有努力做的这一意思，但是用manage to do 会不会更好呢，它可以用来让步即使医生成功控制了其他变量） control all the variable in the treatment in spite of taking antibiotics; and antibiotics do control the possibility of suffering from secondary infections; the antibiotics and the sugar pills do not exert any detrimental effect to patients’ recuperation (although it seems subjective to take for grant such utopian state), it will be the author’s cursory（赞一下） to give final verdict（以前从没用过，受教了） that all patient（S） will suited for the result.

To sum up, the arguer’s argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly.

文章的整体架构已经搭建起来，而且看得出来你对词的选用很下了一些功夫，句子结构也十分精彩，which 让我自愧不如。第一段总结了文章错误，中间三段分别就三个错误进行了攻击，最后总结文章unpersuasive.
但是我在你的文章中发现了一下需要该进的地方（相信你自己也感觉到了）：
1。在每段的开头你对这段的逻辑错误的描述还不够具体。比如说你的第二段，只说了文中没有提供给予足够的医学知识背景。我认为这里更多的应该具体到他没有将抗生素与其他药物相比，以至于他不能得到结论。
2．后两段的论述强度有点不够，只总结了一下他的错误，并未具体攻击。这是需要提高之处。多次写作后定能提高。
3．最后一段内容上与开头有些重复。我认为应该再最后一段对作者提出改进建议。
4．最后就是逻辑问题的攻击了。

我对本文逻辑链的分析如下：

两组肌肉损伤病人，一组用了抗生素，一组没用而用了糖——1> 抗生素引起了时间的减少//（暗含抗生素能够预防二次感染）——2》对于严重肌肉拉伤的二次感染的预防可以减短恢复时间//又抗生素能预防二次感染——3》应该将抗生素加入治疗所有肌肉拉伤病人了疗法中
1 我觉得研究样本的充分性代表性是一个攻击对象
2 其次，抗生素与时间减少的因果关系也是一个攻击对象
3 肌肉损伤病人的结论能推及肌肉严重拉伤的病人么？
4 缺乏对于其他有预防二次感染药物的叙述。
5 对于严重拉伤的病人的结论不能推及肌肉拉伤的病人
在这其中我认为这一列是构成一个让步攻击的。其次3,5是主观推断。他将几种损伤混淆了，需要严重攻击。其他的可以选择性攻击。

拙见至此，欢迎拍砖

weili0612UID: 2767606

Argue51 by Cynthia 修改by weili0612
In this argument, the arguer recommends that all muscle strained patients should take antibiotics as a part of their treatment. To justify this claim, the arguer points out that the secondary infection would keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. In addition, he cites the result of a study that muscle strained patients who were treated with antibiotics recuperated quicker than the patients who just took sugar pills. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

To support the recommendation, the arguer cites the result of a study on muscle strained patients that taking antibiotics would reduce the recuperation time, which sounds reasonable. However, the reliability of the study is still open to question. Firstly, the arguer does not inform us about the severity of injuries, physical conditions, and other treatments about the two groups. It is possible that non-antibiotics treatment group patient suffered severer injuries or worse physical conditions than patients who took antibiotic, so that they took more time to recuperate. Secondly, two different doctors might offer different treatment between two groups, and Dr. Newland who specializes in sports medicine might be more specialized in curing muscle strains. Finally, “typically expected” recuperation time is not an exact definition. According to the argument, one does not know exactly how long is the “typically expected recuperation time”, or “40 quicker than typically expected time”, either. In a sum, the study is doubtable that one can not easily accept its result without more evidence to justify its reliability.

Even if the result of the study is reliable, the comment that all the muscle strained patients should take antibiotics is still unconvincing. Common scene tells us that not all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain will suffer secondary infections. The arguer simply recommends all the muscle strained patient should take antibiotics on the unreasonable assumption that secondary infections are always accompany with muscle strain. No direct evidence is provided to prove that muscle strained patients who are not suffer from secondary infection should also take antibiotics as a part of their treatment.(这段有点拗口，可以不用这么多话的)

Finally, the feasibility of the conclusion is doubtable. Are all the patients with muscle strain suitable for antibiotic-treatment? There might be children, old people, or pregnant women who are not suitable for taking antibiotics. Perhaps, abuse of antibiotics on these people would cause severe adverse reaction which is more dangerous than a secondary infection.（对啊，没想到诶）

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis dose not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more details about the study to justify that it is credible. Additionally, the arguer must provide direct evidence that muscle strained patients who are not suffer from secondary infections should also take antibiotics as a part of their treatment. Finally, the arguer has to inform us that taking antibiotics is safe enough for all kind of people, including children, old people and pregnant women.
拼写错误通过WORD改正了，不特别指出了。
题目的逻辑链我自己写作时貌似搞错了，看了大家的以后又看了原材料，得出：
1、        第一组，肌肉受伤，Dr. Newland治疗，服用抗生素，他们40%比典型的希望值快。
2、        第二组用sugar pills，Dr. Alton，他们恢复期没有减少。
3、        医生认为二次感染延缓肌肉损伤后的痊愈。（这个是医生YY推论的，没证据的。）
4、        抗生素可预防感染
5、        1，2，4，证明3，
6、        由于5，推出人们肌肉拉伤后都建议用抗生素来加快康复。

作者反驳点：
1、        a没有两组的伤者对比，和其余治疗情况对比。b两组医生差异，c典型康复时间这个词不明确
2、        不是每个肌肉拉伤的人都会感染的
3、        不能表明任何人肌肉拉伤了都要抗生素，比如小孩或者孕妇呢？

重新思考和参考Cynthia后，可以攻击点
1、        实验组太少，不能确定抗生素有效性
2、        可能医生水平不同
3、        病人伤病程度不同
4、        两个地方人种的差异。。。（2、3、4都算1，就是无法排除其它因素干扰）
5、        假设确实是抗生素有效，但也可能不是二次感染延缓肌肉损伤后的痊愈，而是由于其它原因引起了恢复变慢，而抗生素正好起了积极作用。
6、        不是每个人拉伤后都感染的吧
7、        不见得谁都好用抗生素，

cynthia313UID: 2765794

Argue51 by yuanlinqinggre(小歪) 修改by Cynthia
The author concludes in the article that patients with muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics as a part of treatment. To corroborate his conclusion, he cites the study including two groups of patients which are（who were） treated with different treatment. Yet, the argument is firmly based on several unjustified assumption, which render the ratiocination unpersuasive.Firstly, lacking evidence that the sample of the study is both sufficient and representative, the author cannot easily reach his justification. For that matter, it is entirely possible that the number of patients who participate in the study is not sufficient to lead to any valid conclusion. Lacking evidence that participants of the study perfectly represents all the patients with muscle injuries, it is not presumptuous to say(assume) that all the patients who participated in the study are(were) all diagnosed with muscle injuries in ankle, in which case the author cannot reach conclusion which cover all kinds of muscle injuries. (这句话有两重因果关系，lacking evidence所以可以假设所有patients都是ankle受伤，再所以不能代表所有情况得出结论，句子很长，但是不知道能不能这样用，老是觉得读起来很痛苦，后面in which case……有点指代不明确的嫌疑）The scenarios, if true, would be reasonable enough to weaken the conclusion considerably. Therefore, without substantiating that the sample of the study is both sufficient and representative, the author cannot convince me of the basis of the conclusion that the result of the study is valid, let alone about justifying his conclusion.Secondly, difference shown in the result of the study accomplishes nothing towards justifying the fact(assumption还没证明呢) that antibiotic is responsible for the decrease in the recuperation time. Since the author fails to provide prominent (evidence) to validate the causal relationship between antibiotics and reduction in the recuperation time, it is just as likely that some other kinds of medicine which are not mentioned by the author are(were) used in the treatment. For that matter, the author cannot ensure me of the effectiveness of antibiotics whatsoever, until he eliminate other possibilities for the result of the study.Thirdly, even assuming that antibiotics is responsible for the decrease in the recuperation time, the argument still relies on the assumption that antibiotic is effective than any other kinds of medicine. However, the author fails to support this pivot assumption. Without comparing antibiotics with other kinds of medicines, it is just as likely that some other kinds of medicine, such as ..., are more effective and cheaper than antibiotics. （这句话without句感觉没说完，后面又重新写了一句it is...可以直接把without句删掉~)Effective as antibiotic is, （Effective as antibiotic is的意思的抗生素很有效，而不是说these kind of medicine和抗生素一样有效，要换换表达方法哦）these kinds of medicine may be more suitable and affordable. Therefore, without comparing the effectiveness of antibiotic with other medicines, the author cannot persuade me that this is the case.In sum, the argument is lucid but unpersuasive. In order to better assess the argument to(the) author must cite convincing evidence to validate both the effectiveness of the result of the study and that of the sample. Moreover, to strengthen the ratiocination, the author also has to provide study which manifests that antibiotic is more effective (than any other medicines) when it comes to muscle injuries.写文章的时候因为时间限制感觉对于STUDY的攻击还十分不成熟，而且我也注意到了muscle injuries 和muscle strain的不同，但没有想到成熟的方法去攻击，所以果断悲剧了。逻辑图如下：两组病人，一组用了抗生素，另一组用了糖片——》二次感染会增加恢复时间（又因为抗生素可以降低二次感染）——》所以，所有的治疗muscle strain 的方法中应该把抗生素加在其中。

这篇文章总的来说写的非常好，逻辑清晰，用语也较丰富，特别是该童鞋在这么短的时间写出来的，可以看出其对语言的驾驭能力。
正如作者所说，对study的攻击显得不够彻底，study中还有2点个人认为是比较明显的可以攻击的地方：1.两组的医生本来就不一样，可能治疗muscle strain的手段本来就不一样；2.“40 percent quicker than typically expected”是个不明确的概念。
个人觉得作者的第三点攻击显得不够reasonable, the arguer没有提到抗生素是最好的药药，而且也只是建议 take antibiotics as a part of treatment，不影响其他药物的使用啊~有更适合的药可以合用啊~
另外，还有个小问题，就是时态问题。对于study的描述应该要用过去式哦~

toywangUID: 2700880

43# weili0612
51The 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."
医生怀疑次要的感染病可能阻碍病人从肌肉拉伤中痊愈，这个假设现在被一个有2个小组的研究证明了。第一组，肌肉受伤，Dr. Newland治疗，服用抗生素，他们40%比典型的希望值快。第二组用sugar pills，Dr. Alton，他们恢复期没有减少。因此肌肉受伤应该服用抗生素。
两组对比，得出结论。
但是1、医生水平不同，
2、病人受伤程度、地区人种差异。

4、对比组太少，



The author’s conclusion got from the comparison between two groups, which are treated with different medicine[这里不是different medicine吧，是一个有一个没有]. But I think there are other reasons can get to the result【you need to explain what does the result stand for?】, and the conclusion is, of course, inconsequential. 个人觉得没有表达清楚，结果是什么？差异是什么？
Firstly, the first group, 【不用说the first group会感觉重复，去掉first】whose recuperation on average is quicker than the second, is all treated by Dr. Newland and the other is all treated by Dr. Alton. So it is possible that the medical technology gap between the two doctors makes one group recover quicker rather than the antibiotics. If they can do a next experiment which is asking Dr. Newland to treat patients with sugar pills and Dr. Alton to treat patients with antibiotics, and the result doesn’t change with doctors at last. Then I think the conclusion will be more convincing.
【这里不能简单说水平不同，像66说的，若果相同呢？可以根据题目意思说，二者specialized 在不同领域，自然会有差别】
Secondly, the report doesn’t tell us the degree of those patients’ muscle strain. Maybe those treated with antibiotics is less hurt than those with sugar pills. Therefore, it is surely they will heal faster than patients treated with sugar pills. Without the patients classified by the same degree of hurt, the conclusion from such comparison is illogical. And even people from different districts are different in the ability recuperation. It is possible that guys living in Dr. Newland’s city have genes which make them quicker to recover from hurt and disease.

Finally, the conclusion is got from too few samples. As we know, if someone wants to certify something, he must do a lot of experiments and comparisons to put all other reasons out. But there are only two groups here and the conclusion may just be got by accident or even Dr. Newland calculated their recuperation time wrong. Hence, if they did more experiments and more comparisons, finally the conclusion is so.
【这句什么意思？so what？】Then it will be more reasonable and logical.

In sum, without more comparisons in detail and lack of enough groups, the argument is
weak. Anyway, I would not accept the above argument.

我觉得1 字数不够
2 逻辑顺序其实找的不太对，攻击点太弱了。我们哪天天BS一下吧
3 结尾好仓促啊~~~

toywangUID: 2700880

54# cynthia313
argument 53
【1010G精英组】ISSUE&ARGUMENT 习作 by Cynthia
Argument53:
The conclusion in this argument is that during pregnant time mothers’ high level of melatonin, a hormone have [have or has?]an affection on brain functions, leads to continuous shyness of their infants. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the result of a study that 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress to unfamiliar stimuli were more likely to have been born in early autumn, when their mother produce more melatonin. More over[可以用作一个词], the arguer introduces the result of the follow-up study that more than half of these children who had show the signs of distress identified themselves as shy when grow up as teenagers. This argument is problematic for several reasons.

Fist of all, the reliability of the study which the arguer cites to support his conclusion is open to question. Firstly, a sample of 25 infants is not representative to all the infants. Secondly, the rule of judging whether the infants were distress is not given, different rules might lead to different results. Finally, the definition of the term shy is unclear. Different individuals might have different understanding of this subjective difinition. 1样本2标准3我觉得可以和第二点合起来

Even if the result of the study is reliable, the conclusion that the high level of melatonin of mothers leads to shyness of infants is still unconvincing. The arguer confuses causal relation with corelation and unreasonablely assumes that it is the high level of melatonin causes the shyness of the infants, without providing any direct evidences. It is possible that the shyness of infants were caused by the changing levels of some other hormones rather than melatonin. It is also possible that some other factors lead to the shyness, such as,  genetic factors, environment factors, the moods and the diets of mothers, etc. One can not easily accept the analysis without ruling out other fators which might have effect on the infants’ shyness.

Furthermore, the arguer simply equates mild distress with shyness. No direct evidence provided to justify the mild distress of the infants to unfamiliar stimili is a sign of their shyness. Perhaps, it is the sign of sensitiveness, violence or some other characteristics. The arguer should provide more evidence to justify the relationship between mild distress and shyness.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To solidify the conclusion, the arguer should provide more evidence to justify the reliability of the cited study. In addition, the arguer would have to establish the causual 【cause and effect】relation between high levels of molatonin 拼写and shyness of infants. Moreover, direct evidence should be provided to justify that the mild distress of the infants reflect the shyness in their characteristics. Only through this can we accept the aguer’s 拼写conclusion that the high level of metanonin 拼写of mothers leads to continuous shyness of infants.

逻辑很清晰，攻击的轻重也明确，拼写的小错误可以再word上改正。
不好意思迟了很多

lxklysUID: 2738043

48# xingfuhbj
Grounding on the fact that antibiotics can fight infections，then synthesizing the
preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients, the arguer deduced（用得精准） that it was secondary infection（infections） that keep some patients from healing（being healed，我觉得此处用被动语态更合适吧） quickly after severe muscle strain, and suggested all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain have to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.（文章开头把推理过程交待得比较清楚，很好）

However, it is apparently unscientific to get the assertion without the guarantee that the patients in two groups are of the similar conditions,
which include age, career, health conditions, the number of each groups and so on. The premises of an scientific study requiring the basic elements of a rigorous biological test including “hypothesis”、 “unitary variable”、”experimental and control group”, which also the three basic principle（principles） of a biological test（这句话貌似没有谓语，把requiring改为requires就有了），
and we can easily tell that the study above include（involves，因为上面已经出现两个了，所以换一个相近的词） everything except the “unitary variable”. The principle of “unitary variable” lay emphasis on the exclusion of “irrelevant variable” which could cause “extraneous variable”, suppressing interference while verifying hypothesis. What if the patients in the first group are vigorous juvenile while that ofanother
group are weary middle-aged or even oldster? And what about a possibility that the patients in he first group are the first time to suffer from severe muscle strain while the patients in the second group was injured for many times?(我觉得这个作为论据不太严密，这样假设的前提就是第二次感染的恢复速率比第一次的要慢)Can we still reason enough to support the hypothesis that it is secondary infections that keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain?（这几个疑问句的反驳方式很好，我要学着）Even the conditions of patients in two groups are similar enough to suppress the interference（过渡采取让步的方式，再攻击下一个缺点，蛮好O(∩_∩)O.） We still have other irrelevant variables such as the skill of the doctor in two groups, and the ways the doctors used to cure patients may differ too. As the study tells, the patients in first group were being treated by a doctor who specializes in sports medicine while the attending doctor of second group was a general physician. According to the apparently difference on the attending doctor, we are reason enough to suppose the treatment of the two doctors may differ to, which would be(加一个be出来) responsible for the different recovery time of patients in two groups instead of the secondary infections. What’s more, although received the same treatment（转折得很自然）, the patients may have different psychological react（reaction） to the technical level of the doctor,（.）It’s likely that(这样改的话就不会逗号之后是两个独立的句子，就不会有语法错误)the patients in the first group tend to have more faith in recovering quickly because their attending doctor was more specialized.
Anyway, even the study was followed the principle of “unitary variable”, it was still not reason enough to suggest all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Every medicine gave to the patients should endure test for millions of times, especially those could cause some side effects including the antibiotics. As a matter of fact, antibiotics could cause severe allergic reaction, and the abuse of antibiotics could lead to a plastic anemia or hemolytic anemia, and drug resistance which could let a common cold steal（词用得很好，学着） your life.
In sum, every scientific conclusion should be based on the strict experiment. And we do need more research and consideration to use antibiotics so commonly.
总结：
本文在攻击方面具有比较周密的逻辑
每一段都针对一个主要问题攻击，很好
唯一不足的地方就是一些语法错误和一些拼写，然后用词能够再多样化就更好了

xingfuhbjUID: 2769976

D.N（运动医生）用抗生素-----》比预期快40%】

】————》
用抗生素-----》加快速度-----》防止二次感染
D.A（普通医生）用糖片代替-----》未缩短
】



隐含假设：不用抗生素-----》
速度减慢---------》二次感染
重点攻击
1 study的过程中除了使用antibiotics和sugar pills意外，由于两位医生specialized在不同领域，一定在治疗过程中存在某些其他的手段做辅助。尤其作为N是运动专家更有其他手段，for example massotherapy
blabla，
因而抗生素之占了一部分因素，甚至没有因素。

2即使只用了抗生素，那也不能得出结论，这种快速康复只是便面的，是否有影响到身体其他机能的作用没有考虑。40%快，不代表healed了。
3 攻击假设



This speaker (建议用arguer比较native) wants to prove the suspect of doctors by a study about whether antibiotic can raise the speed (speed 一般是和increase搭配吧?) of healing. The result has many flaws both in the survey and in logical (这里应该也接noun.吧?logic). First, the survey conducted is lack of overall consideration. In addition, the function and side effect of antibiotic need to be examined. The biggest problem is laid on that the speaker suppose(s) that the raise of speed can prevent secondary infection and directly regard that antibiotics can function. (感觉作者这句的逻辑比较混,建议理清下思绪~. 可考虑改为The biggest problem occurs when the arguer supposed that the raise of speed can prevent secondary infection then directly deduced that antibiotics can function. 还有我不太理解antibiotics can function是什么意思~ 是由中式思维’抗生素能起作用’直译过来的么? 建议作者再思索一下怎么表达~) This logical is totally confused(建议用unsound比较native).

In evaluation(貌似没见过 in 和 evaluation搭配,而且后面应加一个of) the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted. So the flaws in the survey cannot be neglected, otherwise the conclusion will not be creditable. The 25 patients(我不知道作者从哪看到有写25个人来着…) chosen by the each group are which suffer severe muscle strain, however, on evidence shows that what cause the sickness and even do not claim that they were secondary infection or not.(我看了好久都真的没看懂这句话的结构~请指教~) And the speaker also fails to rule out the patients who still diagnosed with other disease. So the conclusion is not representative. Based on these doubtable premises, the extent from 50 patient(s) to all are more incredible(incredible一般不取”不令人信服的”,可用unauthentic,正好又是GRE词汇). After the discussion about patients, there are still many flaws(这个词出镜率有点过高了~建议fault或者其他替换~) in the aspect of doctors. Dr. Newland and Dr. Alton are specialized in different fields, the former one is specialized in sports medicine, (and) in contrast, the later is a general physician. Muscle strain is regularly happens in sport activities, and the doctor focus on sport medicine must have more skills such as massage and more experience to cure these sort of diseases. However, as a general physician, he or she can only cure the disease through a general way without using any auxiliaries.(建议作者不要写这么主观的肯定句,给自己留点余地,把话说这么死感觉本身逻辑就不够缜密) According to these factors, the speakers cannot own the raise of 40 percent of speed only to antibiotics.
建议作者把反对的理论首先总写摆出来,再拓展。貌似西式思维很强调TS，体现逻辑性，中文的议论文也是要求中心句的，反观作者这段，很难找到一个TS。

Even if we assume that only antibiotics (have) function in the process of treatment and without any other skills to assistant it. The conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be advised to use antibiotics is not accepted. The so called 40 percent quicker is just statics in speed, there is no proof to show that muscle strain is totally healed and will never happen again. 感觉这个逻辑错误有些牵强,不是很好的攻击点
The speaker also lack of(去掉) the consideration about the function of antibiotics. No survey can elaborate there is no side effects will happen to patients or whether these side effects will do harm to patients or not.(这句话很典型的Chinglish~建议作者再瞅瞅怎么表达)
What comes last is that the speaker assumes that if the treatment conducted in typical way, the speed is not raised by 40 percent, patients will get secondary infection. It was totally confused. Are the patients who do not receive any antibiotic treatment in the past are all diagnosed with secondary infection? Of course not.(这句会不会有点口语过头了?不过应该没关系吧~ 还有我没看懂前面那个疑问句表达的意思~请指教~!) It clearly shows that what lead to a secondary infection do not has directly connection with speed, and the use of antibiotic cannot effectively reduce the odds been infected twice.


Based on the discussion above, the flaws made by the speaker are elaborated clearly. The suspect hold by doctors still cannot be proved by the study which is not explains very well. More attention should be paid on what are the real factors that made some patients are infected twice despite of the only concern about speed.


感觉作者的逻辑仍不够清晰,尤其是表达上需要进一步加强.
语言和用词有待改善,感觉还比较Chinglish,建议作者在做ECO时多关注文章的用词和native表达.
建议作者能培养出一种思维,就是一个用了两三遍以后就自然而然想去换一个同义词替代,想不出就搜~

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

TOPIC: ARGUMENT45 - The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.

"Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."
WORDS: 468
TIME: 00:35:00
DATE: 2010-4-23 20:35:29

The author, in a wildlife journal, reaches his conclusion that the decline in the number of arctic deer is resulted from being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns. To validate his conclusion, the editor provides both the habits of arctic deer and the report from local hunters. Yet, further reflection will reveal that the ratiocination is unpersuasive as it stands.

Firstly, the global warming trend mentioned above is little indication that sea ice in Canada's arctic region is melting. Lacking prominent evidence that the sea ice in areas where arctic deer live, we can assumes that sea ice in Canada arctic region is not affected by the global warming trend for its unique geologic terrain which keep sea ice from melting. Therefore, without providing convincing evidence that sea ice in areas where arctic deer live, the editor cannot persuade me of the basis of the conclusion that sea ice is melting, let alone that melting sea ice keeps deer from migrating.

Secondly, since the editor shows no evidence that report from local hunters is effective and reliable, it is entirely possible that the number of arctic deer which is seen by hunters has decreased whereas the population of arctic deer remains stable. For that matter, their habitat may have changed because of the development of human society, which leads to fewer arctic deer was seen by local hunters. Moreover, lacking definite number of the decline, the author cannot eliminate the possibility that little fluctuation in the population of arctic deer result in this decline which is too small to taking into account. Thus, until the editor provides compelling study concerning the decline in the population of arctic deer, I remain doubtful that this is the case.

Thirdly, even assuming that population of arctic deer is declining, which coincide with the melting sea ice in that area, the author fails to eliminate other factors which may greatly effect the population of arctic deer. For that matter, it is just as likely that the amount of plants which arctic deer feed on is declining greatly owing to the pollution, in which case pollution may lead to the decrease in the population. And it is also not presumptuous for us to assume that diseases which is fatal when arctic deer is affected is responsible for the decline. As a result, the author have to ruling out possible reasons for the decline, otherwise he cannot confidently reach his justification.

In sum, the article is lucid, however, unconvincing. To better assess the argument, it is indispensable for the author to provide a study related to the condition of sea ice in Canada's arctic region and a study concerning the population of arctic deer as well. Moreover, to strengthen the ratiocination, the editor must eliminate other factors which may serve to the decline.

cynthia313UID: 2765794

Argue45 by Cynthia
逻辑链：
1.Arctic deer生活在这样的地方：足够温暖又足够的食物，足够冷可以让海结冰，让deer可以跨海寻找食物
2.全球变暖引起冰融化
3.deer数量减少(supported by local hunters' reports)
4.deer减少是由于global warming引起海面冰融化，导致deer不能跨海寻找食物~
攻击点：
1.local hunters' reports'的可信度
2.global warming对deer生活的地方不一定有影响，就算有影响也不一定能达到让海面冰层融化的程度
3.就算海面上的冰溶解了，deer可以游泳啊，或者气候的变暖提供了更多是食物，它们根本不用跑来跑去寻找食物啦
4.其它因素也能导致deer数量减少，作者未能排除
In this analysis, the arguer claims that global warming trends, which cause the sea ice melting, is responsible for the decrease of Arctic deer population in Canada, since the deer can not move over the ice of the sea to search for food. This argument, which sounds lucid and logical at first glance, suffers from several critical fallacies.

To support the statement, the arguer cites the reports of local hunters to justify the populations of Arctic deer are declining. However, the reliability of the reports is still open to question. The local hunters might just find the populations of the deer are declining in a limited area where they inhabit in. They might have not counted all the deer in Canada to reach in a scientific conclusion. It is possible that the deer around the hunters disappeared just because of over hunting, which has little affect of total deer population. It is equally possible that the deer immigrate to other places where there are no hunters disturbing them. Thus, the result of local hunters' reports that the populations of Arctic deer are decreasing is groundless.

Even if the decrease of deer populations is true, the evidence provided in this argument is still not sufficient to validate the assumption that the deer are disappearing because of global warming. The arguer's statement is based on an unreasonable assumption that the global warming must have an effect on the region where inhabits Arctic deer. However, no direct evidence is provided to support this questionable assumption. Perhaps, Canada still stay cold while the global is warming or the extent of the warming is not enough causing ice melting of the sea. Without direct evidence to justify the ice of the sea is melting because of global warming, the arguer's statement is severely weakened.

Furthermore, granted that the global warming leads to the ice melting, the arguer still can not simply assume that the ice melting leads to the decrease of deer populations. It is possible that the warmer climate bring about more food, the deer are no longer necessary to travel across the sea for food. It is also possible that the deer would adapt themselves to the melting ice, perhaps they would swim across the sea instead of travelling over the ice.

What's more, the arguer does not rule out other factors might leads to the decrease of the deer populations, such as over hunting, lacking of food caused by forests destroying, etc. No direct evidence is given to support the assertion that it is global warming that cause deer populations declining rather than other factors.

In conclusion, this argument is unconvincing because of several logical fallacies, the arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between global warming and deer populations' declining. Thus, One can not easily accept this unconvincing analysis without further informations.

weili0612UID: 2767606

45The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.

"Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."
1、讲了下北极鹿的习性
2、当地猎户报告，鹿少了
3、这和气候变暖巧合，气候变暖使得冰融化，
4、我们得出结论：北极鹿的减少是由于他们找不到穿越冰冻海洋的路线了

a、猎户说少不见得鹿就少，只是他们家附近鹿少了。
b、鹿少不见得就是找不到前人迁徙的路了。
C、没人证明鹿的路没了
The argument get a conclusion that the decline of arctic deer populations is because of deer’s losing their age-old migration patterns’ way to cross the frozen sea. At first, the editorial introduces the habits of arctic deer, which will travel over the ice in cold days. But recent global warming trends to cause the sea ice to melt, so the author thinks it may make deer unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. And local hunters found the deer populations were declining. So the writer said that’s for the disappearing of ice ways, which connected many islands. However, the logic is unreasonable and problematic in some respects.
Firstly, the report from local hunters that the deer populations are declining doesn’t mean the whole arctic deer populations are truly cutting down. It can only certify that the deer living near local hunters is becoming less. Maybe many of them, for the global warming, immigrate to a place northerner than local hunters’ houses, but the whole populations of them are likely to still growing.
Even we assume that the place hunters living all over Canada and the quantity of deer is exactly down, the conclusion is still questionable. Because there are many other reasons can result in the decline of deer populations, nevertheless the author didn’t rule out other causes away. For instance, the global warming is possible to get the death of many plants, which are article deer’s food. At last, the number of deer is cutting down for lack of food.

Finally, there is no proof of the disappearing of ice way connecting islands. Maybe global warming just causes the ice way’s generating later than before, but deer can still follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. It’s not the real reason which makes deer’s population down.
In sum, if there are more detail report about the quantity of arctic deer, more analysis of the declining of deer, the conclusion will be more appropriate. The influence of global warm should also be known well enough to find whether it makes deer unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. If the author could rule out other cause away, it would be more logical. Anyway, I don’t agree with the conclusion.