【1010G精英组】ISSUE&ARGU 习作 by D组

missingqiqiUID: 2688720

【1010G精英组】ISSUE&ARGU 习作 by D组

组长：rosanna，SJXXJ

组员：cnycny,cox,liuyonghao,maggie-jiang,寂寞公路

4月17日 第一次作业 ARGU53(沙发~9楼)

https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1087617&page=1#pid1773869274

       第一次作业大家总体完成情况良好，写得都很认真，虽然是第一次，但看出来大家都下功夫了。在看完楼下互改完之后最好有所改善，毕竟自己接受提高才是最终的目的

      但是要指出，寂寞公路没有按时完成互改，虽然可能有客观情况，但是一定要跟上进度，在此警告一次。

4月21日 第二次作业 ARGU51(10~16楼)

https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1087617&page=1#pid1773872935

Maggie-jiang，cox，liuyonghao，寂寞公路没有按要求及时完成互改。

4月24日 第三次作业 ISSUE130(17~？？楼)

https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1087617&page=2#pid1773887987

5月1日 第四次作业 ISSUE50(23~？？楼)

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1087617-3-1.html

5月3日 第四次作业 ISSUE48(??~？？楼)

5月5日 第四次作业 ARGU161??~？？楼)

5月8日 第四次作业 ARGU7??~？？楼)
[quote][/quote]

至于互改，大家发文章最好先用word的语法检查功能检查一遍，没有问题再发上来，也就是互改不管拼写错误。

然后编辑自己的帖子，贴上对每个人的点评和建议，格式自定，不要发新帖。主要是怕文章多了以后太乱，不利于以后总结。

然后晚上大家一起在群内讨论该题目。

好词好句好思路大家挑出来模仿，不要背，防止雷同

missingqiqiUID: 2688720

4月18日 ARGU53
原文的逻辑顺序：
选取25个婴儿                --->表现对不熟悉的气味和声音紧张 |
早秋怀孕--->由于日照减少从而导致一种影响大脑的荷尔蒙增加  |--->论点：出生前melatonin的增加导致婴儿期的害羞并且这种害羞将延续至生命更晚的阶段
已经十几岁的孩子           --->一半以上认为害羞                  |

分析：
1)论据仅对25个婴儿进行了观察，数据不具有普遍性，没有说服力
2)都是在早秋怀孕从而导致荷尔蒙增加并不能说明一定是季节的变化带来的影响。这里强加了因果关系。很可能是当地的饮食习惯或者生态环境或者是一种习俗影响的，也不能排除是婴儿生理上的不舒服的反应。
3)十几岁后一半以上并不能说明什么，因为害羞是一种抽象的表象，即使在正常的人群中，也许也会有一半甚至更多的人比较害羞。而且也没有提供这其中的十几年生活环境的资料，不能排除环境的影响
4)偷换概念。观点中的shyness并不能和论据中的mild distress等同。
5) 结论：需要用更多的科学实验和资料证明荷尔蒙对胎儿的影响并且能一直延续影响

正文（写了好长时间，大概4个多小时）
In this argument, the arguer claims that increased level of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life. To justify the conclusion, the author pointed out that a group of 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli. Furthermore, he indicated that these infants are more likely to have been conceived in early autumn. In addition, he cited the result of a recent survey in support of his notion that more than half of these children – now teenagers are shy. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

For one thing, the argument is based on an unconvincing number of infants that showed signs of mild distress when expose to unfamiliar stimuli. The survey only involves 25 infants, unless the surveyor samples a sufficient number of infants and did so randomly across the entire infants, can’t represent for all the infants. According to this method, surveyor is also not able to remove the element of chance, such as the illness of the infants, who performance the signs of mild distress the same as the arguer refer to. Consequently, the method of the study is unscientific and unreasonable, which finally lead to the result of survey to be invalid.

For another, the arguer assumes that these infants are more likely to have been conceived in early autumn, when the daylight becomes less that leads to the increase of melatonin. Although this is entirely possible, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is very likely that the circumstance that the infants and their mothers lived including the local customs and dietary patterns has a big influence on these people. Without ruling out scenarios such as these, the author cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship between increased levels of melatonin and the mild distress of infants upon which the conclusion depends.

In addition, the result of a recent survey in support of his notion that more than half of these children – now teenagers are shy has no support to conclusion. Shyness is a common character among people and even a majority of us ordinary men may show shyness. So the 50% or little more may be to low to convince us that the reason of shyness is the increase level of melatonin before birth. And more importantly, the arguer doesn’t provide the growing circumstance of these infants, which is a more indispensable condition that shows the cause of shyness. Without these evidences, the survey does not make any sense.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that whether the so-called melatonin could naturally increase in response to decreased daylight and its affection continues into later life. Additionally, the arguer must add more samples until to be sufficient and representative to prove shyness in these infants is common phenomenon. Besides, arguer should provide the growing circumstance of these infants. To strengthen the conclusion, the author should give more evidences about the above-mentioned possibilities.

改 寂寞公路~~~

1、我不赞成对mild distress进行攻击，因为作者并没有说它和shyness有什么关系，没有直接关系的逻辑链。只是说它和那个什么激素有关系，但这个是有可能的，而且这不是结论性的东西。
2、我觉得数量并不能成为攻击点，因为这种实验，这个样本容量已经足够了。当然不能排除25个人都比较特殊的情况，但这只能说样本没有随机性和代表性罢了。
寂寞公路 发表于 2010-4-18 16:53

我的观点：
首先，25个婴儿肯定是不够的。如果这个地方有1000个婴儿或者更多，这么小的一个比例出现问题并不能说明问题。这就按比例好比100个婴儿有一个出现问题，而他是在秋天怀孕，这能说明一定是秋天的问题，甚至是日光减少，甚至是激素增多吗？这一连串的观点都会随之变得毫无道理。所以扩大样本容量是必须的，当然你提到的普遍性和随机性也是实验的基本条件。
其次，既然你谈到了mild distress和shyness没有明确的关系，但是作者却把它作为了自己观点的论据，没有关系能当论据吗？显然是不可以的。所以这点是可以攻击的，因为作者没有证据表明他的论据可以证明论点。ARGU中没有没有作用的句子，这些都是为他自己的论点服务的。
===================================================
The statement that the increasing of melatonin may lead to the signs of distress identified when exposing in strange odor or tape recording seems to be logical. After all, melatonin is known to affect some brain function, which may be likely to influence shyness.
However, increased levels of melatonin before birth causing shyness may not include many other things that would cause shyness among teenagers[这句话逻辑有问题，去掉before从句，去掉that从句，剩下的为melatonin may not include many other things,显然是不正确的。主语不应该是melatonin，应该是the cause of shyness，而你却用来修饰melatonin] and it’s not scientific method to persuade us that melatonin is the trigger of being shy.

First of all, more than half of these children showed shyness dose not means the relationship between melatonin and shyness is reasonable. The writer never mentioned the genders of these children. Girls are usually showing[这个用一般现在时，表明一种普遍状态] more shy attributes than boys[是更多害羞的特性？应该是更害羞吧]. What if all the experimenters are all[怎么有两个all] female? Plus, neither did the author mention the backgrounds of these teenagers, which would deeply influence the development[感觉growing会不会更好,develop强调的是state的发展] of these children. What’s more, 25 infants may be too small a group to support this experiment【感觉不仅要反对原文作者的观点，最好还要给出自己的建议，希望作者能有哪方面的改进。官方范文都有改进方案。比如你提到的，要增加多少，怎么增加，随机性？代表性？这些都可以写】.

Secondly,【感觉这加一个顺序词比较好】We lack more detailed knowledge of melatonin about how it exactly works, where it distributes and what influence it will cause【感觉有点乱，不知道怎么改好】. Shyness can be caused by tremendous spurs or hormones which may not include melatonin. Writer’s explanation about melatonin’s affecting some cerebral function may be somewhat too vague or【这里用and比较好吧】 general to support his opinion.

Finally, it is【用has是不是更好】 no cogent evidence shown that the increasing of this kind of hormone means it would finally affect infants’ body. For instance, melatonin may not possibly transfer from pregnant women to their babies, thus the quantity in infants body is irrelevant to that in their mothers. 【这句话没看懂】

For proving that high levels of melatonin may cause shyness, basic information about melatonin is needed. It is necessary to exclude all possibilities that would lead to shyness when using experiment to support it.【最后最好给出建议】
总结：
1.几个错误都是主流错误，攻击点没有什么问题。但是看完官方范文，发现一味的反驳并不全面，最好给出关于此缺陷的建议和改进方案，这样才能让别人更信服。如果一味反驳，自己却又不知道怎么做才是更科学，更合理的，那也没有说服力。
2.感觉追求长句导致了逻辑有点乱。。当然我的水平有限，也可能是没看懂。可以再讨论。

sjxxjUID: 2745756

1st argumenrt

The arguer claims that, the level ofmelatonin leads to shyness during infancy, which also continues into laterlife. In order to certify his conclusions, the arguer cites several studies concerningwith 25 infants-now-teenagers. Through being thought over carefully, however,this argument is found several obvious logical fallacies.

Firstly, the basis on which thecause-conclusion relationship between melatonin and shyness during infancy isnot strongly reasonable. On one hand, it is not believed that the arguerequates the mild distress showed by those 25 infants who were exposed tounfamiliar stimuli in the fist cited study to shyness. Obviously, the symbol ofshyness showed by infant cannot be measured exactly. Moreover, authors couldfind no explanation about these problems which can be described as “whichbehavior can be accepted as shyness or something paralleling shyness” or “whatcan people do to discriminate shyness from other Feelings such as milddistress, dismay and so on.” On the other hand, in spite of this, the arguer'sviewpoint that melatonin leads to shyness cannot be universal admitted. Becausethe arguer fails to take other factors affecting formation of shyness duringinfancy into account, such as the factor of their mothers, the affection ofenvironment and so on. Simple put, therefore, it is skeptical for arguer toimply the cause-and-outcome relationship between melatonin and shyness duringinfancy.

Secondly, even if melatonin couldcontribute to shyness of infancy, it is also not universal admitted that thearguer claims that the shyness generated during infancy continues into laterlife. For one thing, in the third study cited, the report that more than halfof these children-now-teenagers identified themselves shy is skeptical, becauseit is evdiencious subjective that those teenagers identified themselvesshyness. For another thing, it comes to the same question that “how can ateenager identify himself/herself shyness". For example, a introvert mayidentify slight nervousness as shyness whereas a extrovert probably identifythe one nothing. However, the arguer also finds no evidence to expel thesefactors.

Consequently, the arguer's viewpoint aboutcause-and-conclusions relationship cannot be well established. Probably onlywhen those factors mentioned above are taken into account can the arguer'sacclamation be well accepted.

改missingqiqi

In this argument, the arguer claimsthat increased level of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy andthis shyness continues into later life. To justify the conclusion, the author
pointed out（有正向评价之意，有暗示支持作者之意，个人觉得在argu中指明作者观点不太适用） that a group of 25infants who showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli. Furthermore, he indicated that these infantsare more likely to have been conceived in early autumn. In addition, he cited（三个时态是否应该保持一致呢？）the result of arecent survey in support of his notion that more than half of these children –now teenagers are shy. （可否添一逻辑转折词如however，but。。，上下句子逻辑或许更清晰些）This argumentsuffers from several critical fallacies.（第一段
结构完整，简洁明了，指出了文章的主要攻击的错误）

For one thing, the argument is based on anunconvincing number of infants that showed signs of mild distress when exposeto unfamiliar stimuli. The survey only involves 25 infants, unless the surveyorsamples a sufficient number of infants and did（时态不一致） so randomly across theentire infants, can’t（科技文体用连字不太合 适 建议换成cannot） represent for all the infants. According to this method, surveyor isalso not able to remove the element of chance, such as the illness of theinfants, who performance the signs of mild distress the same as the arguer refer（时 态） to. Consequently, the method of the study is unscientific andunreasonable, which finally lead to the result of survey to（重复？） be invalid.

For another, the arguer assumes that theseinfants are more likely to have been conceived in early autumn, when thedaylight becomes less that leads to the increase of melatonin. Although this isentirely possible, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiatethis crucial assumption. [It is very likely that the circumstance that theinfants and their mothers lived ，including the local customs and dietary patterns，（改成插入语成分，句子脉络或许更清楚些） has a big（总觉得有点怪，语感上，可否换成程度词 如deep） influence on these people. ]Withoutruling out scenarios such as these, the author cannot establish acause-and-effect relationship between increased levels of melatonin and themild distress of infants upon which the conclusion depends.

In addition, the result of a recent survey insupport of his notion that more than half of these children – now teenagers areshy has no support to conclusion. Shyness is a common character among peopleand even a majority of us ordinary men may show shyness. So the 50% or littlemore may be to low to convince us that the reason of shyness is the increaselevel of melatonin before birth. And（可以去掉and） more importantly, the arguer doesn’t（分开写） provide the growingcircumstance of these infants, which is a more indispensable condition thatshows the cause of shyness. Without these evidences, the survey does not makeany sense.

As it stands（四个逻辑连接词，使得文章结构完整）, the argument is not wellreasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstratethat whether the so-called melatonin could naturally increase in response todecreased daylight and its affection continues into later life. Additionally,the arguer must add more samples until to be sufficient and representative toprove shyness in these infants is common phenomenon. Besides, arguer shouldprovide the growing circumstance of these infants. To strengthen theconclusion, the author should give more evidences about the above-mentionedpossibilities.

（文章结构很清晰，逻辑漏洞驳斥论证分三段展开，逻辑清楚，只有几处小的错误，如果能在更短的时间内写出，将会更好，当然，都是第一次，大家以后一起努力。本人也仅能提出一些粗浅的意见，如果有不正确的地方，还望批评指正。   

                                                             sjxxj时间西厢记  4.20）

cnycnyUID: 2791256

A53
逻辑链
25个婴儿面对不熟悉的事物表现得distress \
                                             25个婴儿在早秋怀孕|--->婴儿变得distress是因为母体melation多
   母亲体内的melatoin含量在早秋会增加/

  婴儿变得distress是因为母体melation多\
                                                                                    |--->Melatoin的增加会导致终生的shyness
                   13年后，这25人认为自己很shy/


分析
1.作者并没有说明其它的婴儿对外界刺激的反映，所以有可能所有的婴儿对外接的刺激都会做出相同的反映，因为他们当时还很脆弱。
2.作者也没有说明melatonin的具体的作用，它对母亲的大脑产生影响还是对孩子的产生影响。作者没有给出这些婴儿的母亲怀孕的具体时间，很有可能这些母亲并不是在秋季怀孕。
3.对这些婴儿的跟踪调查显示现在还有多一半的人认为自己很害羞，但是作者并没有给出这些孩子后天的教育背景以及他的家庭情况，有可能父母不善言谈，性格内向，则孩子也会比较内向，害羞。作者没有给出明确的证据来说明害羞的人就一辈子害羞，人是可以被环境改变的，在一定的环境下，害羞的人也可以不害羞。

正文
In this argument, the author concludes that increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life. To support the conclusion, the author provides the evidence that a group of 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli. In addition, he cites the result of a recent study that more than half of these children-now teenagers-identified themselves as shy. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First, the argument is based on an incomplete and selective comparison. Lacking more specific information about how other infants besides these 25 infants acted in face of unfamiliar stimuli, it is impossible to assess whether these 25 infants were really distress. Maybe other infants could show signs of mild distress too, when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli, because they were still weak.

In addition, the author fails to convince us that melatonin can affect infants. In the absence of the specific effect of melatonin, whether melatonin can affect the infants’ brain functions or the mothers’ is open to doubt. The argument fails to rule out the possibility that melatonin can only affect mothers’ brain instead of the infants. What’s more, author didn’t provide the specific time when they were conceived. Maybe their mothers didn’t conceive in early autumn.

Finally, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The author fails to establish a causal relationship between the circumstance where they were brought up and their characters. Taking education and their parents’ influence on them into consideration, infants who identified themselves as shy may simply affected by their shy parents. For lack of clear evidences to prove a man will be shy for his whole life if he was shy when he was young. Since man’s character could be changed by the environment, these shy teenage may be open and frank disposition when they grow up.

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and being shyness in their whole life. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide evidence that melatonin can make infants distressed. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the circumstance the teenagers in.





改 sjxxj

The arguer claims that, the level of melatonin leads to shyness during infancy, which also continues into later life. In order to certify his conclusions, the arguer cites several studies concerning with 25 infants-now-teenagers. Through being thought over carefully, however, this argument is found several obvious logical fallacies.(本段中黑体字涉及到原文逻辑，建议在首段把原文的漏洞逻辑简要介绍一下，作为下文攻击的靶子，总领全文嘛)

Firstly, the basis on which the cause-conclusion (使用cause-effect或causal表达因果关系或许地道一点) relationship between melatonin and shyness during infancy is not strongly reasonable. On one hand, it is not believed that the arguer equates the mild distress showed by those 25 infants who were exposed to unfamiliar stimuli in the first cited study to shyness. Obviously, the symbol of shyness showed by infant cannot be measured exactly. Moreover, authors could find no explanation about these problems which can be described as “which behavior can be accepted as shyness or something paralleling shyness” or “what can people do to discriminate shyness from other Feelings such as mild distress, dismay and so on.” On the other hand, in spite of this, the arguer’s viewpoint that melatonin leads to shyness cannot be universal admitted. Because the arguer fails to take other factors affecting formation of shyness during infancy into account, such as the factor of their mothers, the affection of environment and so on. Simply put （不错嘛）, therefore, it is skeptical for arguer to imply the cause-and-outcome relationship between melatonin and shyness during infancy.（两个角度论证，很好）

Secondly, even if melatonin could contribute to shyness of infancy, it is also not universal admitted that the arguer claims that the shyness generated during infancy continues into laterlife. For one thing, in the third study cited, the report that more than halfof these children-now-teenagers identified themselves shy is skeptical, becauseit is evdiencious subjective that those teenagers identified themselves shyness. For another thing, it comes to the same question that “how can ateenager identify himself/herself shyness". For example, an introvert may identify slight nervousness as shyness whereas an extrovert probably identifies the one nothing (建议换成as normal，表“常态”之意). However, the arguer also finds no evidence to expel these factors.

Consequently, the arguer's viewpoint about cause-and-conclusions relationship cannot be well established. Probably only when those factors mentioned above are taken into account can the arguer’s acclamation be well accepted.（使用万能结尾有点单调，建议加些与文章相关的内容，就是把结论具体化、独特化）
整体论证很好，提出些浅薄建议，仅供参考，如有疏漏，恳请批评指正。

maggie-jiangUID: 2666877

首先这篇ARGU是说母亲怀孕时候的褪黑激素的分泌和婴儿出生后含羞心里之间的联系。
逻辑链如下：
25名婴儿对外界的陌生刺激物感到轻微痛苦|
婴儿受孕在早秋                                  | ---->痛苦的原因在于婴儿在母亲体内时的褪黑激素的levels
早秋母亲的退褪黑激素的因日照减少而增加| ---->长大后害羞也是因为褪黑激素
婴儿长成青少年半数以上的人有含羞心理
产前褪黑激素的上升导致婴儿时期的害羞心理---->长大以后也会有害羞心理

我的文章的大概内容：
1. 13年前的研究没有对比项，如没有研究在早秋受孕的婴儿没有害羞心理的，or在其他季节受孕的有害羞心理的婴儿，然后提出冬天受孕的婴儿并指出研究在季节上也有unreasonable的地方，为什么是秋天而不是冬天褪黑激素的上升
2. 假设13年的研究的结论是由道理的，对今年的研究做出反驳，为什么婴儿时期的害羞一定会造成以后生活中的害羞心理
最后总结

第一次写ARGU用时50分钟不到400字，不太想超时太多，所以写的有点简略，只提出了2个大点，有点仓促的收了尾。。。
想逻辑错误的时候好像想出来了，但是写的是后又不知道怎么表达。。。
不过我想努力了一段时间会好的，请小组的童鞋重拍，谢谢~


A53
In this argument, the author concludes that the infants who more likely been conceived in early autumn, a time when their mother’s production of melatonin would show shy during infancy and continues into later life. To support this conclusion, author cites a study. But this study contains several facts that are questionable.

First of all, the reliable and generalizability of the study are open to the question. In fact, thirteen years ago, the researchers only studied the 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli, and then discovered they are more likely than other infants to have been conceived in early autumn and made the conclusion. But there are no other comparisons mentioned from the study, such as the infants who have been conceived in early autumn but not showed shyness or who showed shyness but have been conceived in spring summer or winter. Additionally, the study said infants’ shyness were caused by their mothers’ melatonin increasing and the melatonin increases in response to the decrease of the daylight. In fact, in early winter the daylight  decreases more than in early autumn. So the study fails to convince by showing no causal linkage between season and shyness.

Secondly, we assume that the study made in thirteen years ago and its conclusions are correct and the infants who have been conceived in early autumn show signs of distress. Given that, there is still a problem with the follow-up study which directly says the increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life. There is no evidence to support this relationship. Furthermore, other facts such as the living environment, lifestyle, the habits and characteristics of his or her family may play a much bigger role than the levels of melatonin before birth.

In summary, the arguer fails to by jumping to a conclusion that fails to hold up to convinces. To strengthen the argument, the arguer needs to prove other seasons can not cause the infants’ shyness and made future study to prove increased levels of melatonin can influence infants’ later life not only in their infancy and teenage.

改cnycny的A53
A53
逻辑链
25个婴儿面对不熟悉的事物表现得distress \
                                             25个婴儿在早秋怀孕|--->婴儿变得distress是因为母体melation多
   母亲体内的melatoin含量在早秋会增加/

  婴儿变得distress是因为母体melation多\
                                                                                    |--->Melatoin的增加会导致终生的shyness
                   13年后，这25人认为自己很shy/
感觉你的逻辑链和你的文章的攻击点不太一样
不过文章中的攻击点还挺好的，反正比我的好。。。学习学习！

分析
1.作者并没有说明其它的婴儿对外界刺激的反映，所以有可能所有的婴儿对外接的刺激都会做出相同的反映，因为他们当时还很脆弱。
2.作者也没有说明melatonin的具体的作用，它对母亲的大脑产生影响还是对孩子的产生影响。作者没有给出这些婴儿的母亲怀孕的具体时间，很有可能这些母亲并不是在秋季怀孕。
3.对这些婴儿的跟踪调查显示现在还有多一半的人认为自己很害羞，但是作者并没有给出这些孩子后天的教育背景以及他的家庭情况，有可能父母不善言谈，性格内向，则孩子也会比较内向，害羞。作者没有给出明确的证据来说明害羞的人就一辈子害羞，人是可以被环境改变的，在一定的环境下，害羞的人也可以不害羞。（分析的和文章中写的差不多）

正文
In this argument, the author concludes that increased levels of melatonin before （什么的出生，没主语）birth cause shyness during(少主语) infancy and this shyness continues into（同少主语） later life. To support the（this，上一句你是说的结论，这里可以用this指代的更明确） conclusion, the author provides the evidence that a group of 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli. In addition, he cites the result of a recent study that more than half of these children（上一句用的是infants，这里还用infants的好，不然有点不知所云）-now teenagers-identified themselves as shy. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.没懂这句examination是指study还是你想说只要是严谨的论证都会揭示吃这篇ARGUMENT结论的无根据性？

First, the argument is based on an incomplete and selective（想说没有随机性吧，selective是指有选择的用在这里不太好吧） comparison. Lacking more specific information about how other infants besides these 25 infants acted in face of(面对。。。还是用原文中的exposed的好，可以改下句型，用when...) unfamiliar stimuli, it is impossible to assess whether these 25 infants were really distress. Maybe other infants could show signs of mild distress too,（用as well比较好，如果用too要在前面加逗号的） when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli, because they were still weak.用delicate比较好吧。。指体质羸弱的，娇弱的

In addition, the author fails to convince us that melatonin can affect （the） infants. In the absence of（不确定这个用法对不对，不过可以用without简单点） the specific effect of melatonin, whether melatonin can affect the infants’ brain functions or the mothers’ is open to doubt（感觉这里没有交代清楚，我是看过你的分析才知道你这里要表达什么意思，没看过的肯定不知道你要表达什么，可以把省略的部分不全，这样比较清楚）. The argument （also）fails to rule out the possibility that melatonin can only affect mothers’ brain instead of the infants.（这句话没前提，不符合逻辑。。还有can可以改成may） What’s more, author didn’t （时态问题改成doesn't）provide the specific time when they were conceived. Maybe their mothers didn’t conceive in early autumn.这句好像也有问题，不太知道你想表达什么。。有点乱。

Finally, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The author fails to establish a causal relationship between the circumstance（s） where they were（have been ） brought up and their characters. Taking(the) education and their parents’ influence on them into consideration, (the) infants who identified themselves as shy may simply(用simply不太好吧，太片面了) affected by their shy parents. For lack of clear evidences to prove a man will be shy for his whole life if he was shy when he was young. Since（a） man’s character could be changed by the environment, these shy teenage(s) may be open and frank disposition when they grow up.

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between(the) increased levels of melatonin before birth (应该讲清是妈妈的褪黑激素上升)cause（宝宝的mild distress） shyness during infancy and being shyness in their whole life. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide (the) evidence that melatonin can make infants distressed. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the circumstance(s) the teenagers in.

总体来讲结构是清楚的，反驳点也很准
可是，表达还要加强，有些地方说的不够清楚。中间的一段有点小乱。。。
我第一次改别人的文章，要是有改错的地方还请指教啊！

rosanna1029UID: 2318257

1.研究没有说服力
2.melatonin和infant没有确定的因果关系
3.distress和shyness
觉得有点混乱，不知道2和3哪个放在前面比较好。不知道在哪里举例子，感觉全篇都在叙述，所以写不长。

The infants who act with distress when young and sort themselves to the shy ones afterwards are
more likely than others to be conceived in early autumn—the time their mothers have increased melatonin. So it seems reasonable to attribute their shyness to the amount of melatonin.

First of all, the study is unreliable for the sampled number of the infants is so small that it can’t represent the infants of all kinds of situations. The 25 infants may not cover different conceived time or be from different regions where the last of daylight differs. Also the study has no groups to make a reference in order to exclusive the other possible effects. The babies may differ in weight for example, then the cause to distress can’t be focused solely on the reason above nor on the weight. If the causality in the study is not tenable, the deduction itself is an issue. So a detailed research is needed to prove the argument.

Even though the study is convinced, it can’t help to demonstrate the relationship between mother’s production of melatonin and infants’ behavior. There are many causes to influence the infants. Perhaps the melatonin only effect the mother’s body and have nothing to do with the infant, or it indeed influence on the infant but of the health instead of the shyness. One possible reason is that the climate in this region is getting worse from autumn; mothers have less exercises which lead to the child’s shyness. It appears reasonable, therefore, for the arguer to focus on these aspects than the melatonin.

Furthermore, the mild distress is different from the shyness. The arguer is failing to consider the mild distress of infants confronting the motivations as natural response. As for shyness, it can be formed in their daily lives. The infants not distress in this study may also become shy after growing up. Therefore there is no solid causality.

To conclude, the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence and thorough connection between increased levels of melatonin and shyness. In absent of indispensable information, the arguer unwarrantedly draw his or her conclusion in this argument.

～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～

In this argument, the author concludes that the infants who more likely been conceived in early autumn, a time when their mother’s production of melatonin（raise or increase）  would show shy during infancy and continues into later life. To support this conclusion, author cites a study. But this study contains several facts that are questionable.

First of all, the reliable and generalizability of the study are open to (对 ... 开放的，易受 ... 的)the question.(这句不太明白) In fact, thirteen years ago, the researchers only studied the 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli, and then discovered they are more likely than other infants to have been conceived in early autumn and made the conclusion. But there are no other comparisons mentioned from the study, such as the infants who have been conceived in early autumn but not showed shyness or who showed shyness but have been conceived in spring summer or winter. Additionally, the study said infants’ shyness were caused by their mothers’ melatonin increasing and the melatonin increases（刚开始都没注意到前面有个said，以为were用错了，应用单数，现在看到前面的said，这里应该是increased吧） in response to the decrease of the daylight. In fact, in early winter the daylight  decreases more than in early autumn. So the study fails to convince (及物动词)by showing no causal linkage between(觉得这句话不错) season and shyness.

Secondly, we assume that the study made in thirteen years ago and its conclusions are correct and the infants who have been conceived in early autumn show signs of distress. Given that(我认为这不是一个词组吧，只是一个given引导的that从句，所以考虑的问题应该接在that后面，不知道认可否), there is still a problem with the follow-up study which directly says the increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life. There is no evidence to support this relationship. Furthermore, other facts such as the living environment, lifestyle, the habits and characteristics of his or her family may play a much bigger role than the levels of melatonin before birth(这句不错).

In summary, the arguer fails to by jumping to a conclusion that fails to hold up to convinces(这句不太明白). To strengthen the argument, the arguer needs to prove other seasons can not cause the infants’ shyness and made future study to prove increased levels of melatonin can influence infants’ later life not only in their infancy and teenage.(结尾值得借鉴)

总的来说是针对的study的漏洞，但我觉得有的地方重复题目太多，我也这样，提到题目想不出同样的说法去替代。这应该是我们都要加强的地方。语言和简洁明白，故作呻吟的长难句不多，蓝色部分用的不错。不对的地方望包涵。

coxUID: 2730480

逻辑链：

反对观点一：25名婴儿 --->受到不熟悉的刺激表现出轻微紧张
反对观点二：早丢怀孕--->早秋是一种会影响大脑功能的荷尔蒙因日照减少而增加的季节
反对观点三：那些些25名现在已经十几岁--->有一半以上认为自己害羞|
总论点：出生前M的增加会导致婴儿期的羞涩并且会持续到生命更晚的阶段期。。

    In this argument, the arguer concludes that melatonin（M）  increasing before birth causes shyness during infancy and later life. To strengthen this conclusion, the arguer provides a statistics that 25 infants who showed mild of distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli were more likely to have been conceived in early autumn. The arguer also cites a supporting evidence indicating that more than half of these children identified themselves as shy. However, close scrutiny reveals that it contains several unconvincing assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive.

　To begin with, the author's conclusions depend on the assumption that the study results are statistically reliable. Yet, the author offers no evidence to substantiate this assumption. The 25 infants as a sample in these two studies is neither statistically significant, nor is representative of the overall population of infants showing signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli, and it is entirely possible that a large number of children of this kind other than 25 ones were conceived in other seasons. Therefore, drawing a conclusion based on such a small sample would not be justified.
    Additionally, a correlation between M and infants'shyness does not necessarily indicates that the former is the cause of the later. The author apparently overlooks some other factors that may also account for children's shyness. For instance, those teenagers characterized as shy were actually influenced by their growing environment rather M, or perhaps there are other chemicals instead of M that would affect brain functions and led to the timidity. Without ruling out these possible factors, the author cannot conclude so hastily that M is the cause of the shyness.
    Finally, the fact that more than half of these children identifying themselves as shy proves nothing about bolstering this conclusion, because in this sample consisted of 25 teenagers, the term "more than half" can possibly mean, for example, 13 out of 25, which would render any conclusion based upon it invalid. Unless the author assures me that this scenario is unlikely, she or he cannot confidently draw any conclusion.
    As it stands, this argument is not well reasoned. To better support its conclusion, the author should provide more substantial evidence to prove that these studies are dependable. For example, perhaps the sample should be enlarged ; besides,factors other than M should not be neglected.

改  ：

”1.研究没有说服力
   2.melatonin和infant没有确定的因果关系
  3.distress和shyness
  觉得有点混乱，不知道2和3哪个放在前面比较好。不知道在哪里举例子，感觉全篇都在叙述，所以写不长。
                                                                    本帖最后由 rosanna1029 于 2010-4-19 03:08 编辑  ”                           

The infants who act with distress when young and sort themselvesto the shy ones afterwards are more likely than others to be conceived in earlyautumn—the time their mothers have increased melatonin. So it seems reasonableto attribute their shyness to the amount of melatonin. (最后这里应该表明文章有错误吧)This argument contains several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing.
除了上面加给你的那句外，我觉得你在复述原文上表述上应该更具层次性。比如，你可以说文章结论是基于两个studies.
The first one..... The second one.... 我只是举了个例子。

First of all, the study is unreliable for the sampled（sample）number of the infants is so small that it can’t represent the infants of allkinds of situations. The 25 infants may not cover different conceived time orbe from different regions where the last of daylight differs.(看不懂哎。。。。)Also the study has no groups to make a reference in order to exclusive(ruleout) the (去掉THE) otherpossible effects. The babies may differ in weight for example, then the causeto distress can’t be focused solely on the reason above nor on the weight. Ifthe causality in the study is not tenable, the deduction itself is an issue. Soa detailed research is needed to prove the argument.
（在反驳逻辑错误中也应该举出一些其他的可能性。 Perhaps....; or perhaps......）
Even though the study is convinced, it can’t help to demonstratethe relationship between mother’s production of melatonin and infants’behavior. There are many causes to influence the infants.( 这个THEREBE 用错了吧) Perhaps the melatonin only effectthe mother’s body and have nothing to do with the infant, or it indeedinfluence on the infant but of the health instead of the shyness. One possiblereason is that the climate in this region is getting worse from autumn; mothershave less exercises which lead to the child’s shyness. It appears reasonable,therefore, for the arguer to focus on these aspects than the melatonin.
Furthermore, the mild distress is different from the shyness. Thearguer is failing to consider the mild distress of infants confronting themotivations as natural response. As for shyness, it can be formed in theirdaily lives. The infants not distress in this study may also become shy aftergrowing up. Therefore there is no solid causality.

To conclude, the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence andthorough connection between increased levels of melatonin and shyness. Inabsent of indispensable information, the arguer unwarrantedly draw his or herconclusion in this argument.
（在每个反驳逻辑段和结尾处应该提出其他方面的可能性吧。。。。）

liuyonghaoUID: 2724226

攻击点：
1：婴儿的轻微紧张是由mel引起的吗
2：就算轻微紧张是由mel引起的，但表现轻微紧张就会害羞吗
3：就算轻微紧张会导致害羞，但青少年害羞还有其他原因
4:作者的论据也有问题，25样本太小，而且青少年一半害羞就一定很高吗

The argument contains several facets that are questionable. First,  the argument  unfairly assumes a causal relationship between increased levels of melatonin and signs of mild stress in the infants . Second ,the argument rests on the gratuitous assumption that mild stress will cause shyness .Third ,the argument fails to take into account other possible factors that might have caused shyness in the surveyed infants. Last but not least , the reliability of the  survey is open to doubt.I will discuss each of these facets in turn.
     To begin with ,the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between increased levels of melatonin and signs of mild stress in the infants . First,the arguer does not tell us what is melatonin .we can not know its definition  from the survey ,the arguer only give us a ill-defined concept  that it is a  hormone which  affect some brain functions.Does it really  affect the infants ?it is possible the fact that milatonin only have something to do with the pregnant mother .Second ,even assuming that  melatonin will affect the infants ,it does not mean it will make the infants dipressed. Therefore ,the arguer commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification.
     Even if the increased level  of melatonin will result in mild stress , there arise another problem with this argument , namely  the unfounded causal relationship between signs of mild distress and shyness .It is normal that a infant feel depressed when faced with some unfamiliar stimulus .we can not simply consider a infant who is under depress as a shy baby  . It is possible the fact that the surveyed infants are more sensitive to changes of the environment .Accordingly,the arguer simply equates mild distress with shyness ,which is unwarranted.  
     Even if signs of mild distress and shyness have a causal association,the arguer fails to rule out other factors that might account for shyness in the surveyed teenagers.The author states that the shyness of teenagers are outcome of the increase of melatonin when they were infants. However, it is equally  possible that other factors result in the shyness of teenagers, such as new changes of their bodies ,their family background or their experience .Hence ,the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization .
      Finally ,how the survey was conducted also deserve our consideration while evaluating the evidence of survey . The survey only have a sample of 25 infants and it is too small to draw any conclusion from so small sample. Moreover , the fact that half of the teenagers who grow up from the 25 infants feel shy does not definitely  mean that the percentage  is high .Common sense tell us that teenagers are more shy than people of other age,therefore , the result that half of the surveyed teenagers feel shy is possible not strange at all. The arguer should tell us what is the percentage of the common teenagers of the same age who feel shy.
     In summary ,the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading . To make the argument more convincing ,the arguer should tell us more about meltanin and establish a causal relationship between the increased level of meltanin and shyness.what is more,a survey which involve more infants is indispensible . Without this sort of information ,the argument reaches too hasty a conclusion.

  ～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
改上楼文章：
（本文中author最好改为arguer,红色表示修改，蓝色表示好词好句，修改的可能有点不到位）
In this argument, the arguer concludes that melatonin（M）  increasing before birth causes shyness during infancy and later life. To strengthen this conclusion, the arguer provides a statistics（改为survey) that 25 infants who showed mild of distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli were more likely to have been conceived in early autumn. The arguer also cites a supporting evidence indicating that more than half of these children identified themselves as shy. However, close scrutiny reveals that it contains several unconvincing assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive.

　To begin with, the author's conclusions depend on the assumption that the study results are statistically reliable. Yet, the author offers no evidence to substantiate this assumption. The 25 infants as a sample in these two studies is neither statistically significant, nor is representative of the overall population of infants showing signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli, and it is entirely possible that a large number of children of this kind other than 25 ones were conceived in other seasons. Therefore, drawing a conclusion based on such a small sample would not be justified.
    Additionally, a correlation between M and infants'shyness does not necessarily indicates that the former is the cause of the later. The author apparently overlooks some other factors that may also account for children's shyness. For instance, those teenagers characterized as shy were actually influenced by their growing environment rather M, or perhaps there are other chemicals instead of M that would affect brain functions and led to the timidity. Without ruling out these possible factors, the author cannot conclude so hastily that M is the cause of the shyness.(总结地很好，句子也很漂亮)
    Finally, the fact that more than half of these children identifying themselves as shy proves nothing about bolstering this conclusion, because in this sample consisted of 25 teenagers, the term "more than half" can possibly mean, for example, 13 out of 25, which would render any conclusion based upon it invalid. Unless the author assures me that this scenario is unlikely, she or he cannot confidently draw any conclusion.（这一段还可以攻击的是样本太少了或作者没有提供正常青少年的羞涩比例，说不定正常青少年也有一半多羞涩）
    As it stands, this argument is not well reasoned. To better support its conclusion, the author should provide more substantial evidence to prove that these studies are dependable. For example, perhaps the sample should be enlarged ; besides,factors other than M should not be neglected.

寂寞公路UID: 2759715

逻辑链没什么新鲜的，和前面两个筒子一样，我说说我自己的看法：

1、我不赞成对mild distress进行攻击，因为作者并没有说它和shyness有什么关系，没有直接关系的逻辑链。只是说它和那个什么激素有关系，但这个是有可能的，而且这不是结论性的东西。
2、我觉得数量并不能成为攻击点，因为这种实验，这个样本容量已经足够了。当然不能排除25个人都比较特殊的情况，但这只能说样本没有随机性和代表性罢了。
3、我觉得可以攻击的地方：
        a、样本没有代表性，或者说没有交代具有代表性。可能25个都是女生、生活环境都比较压抑种种。
        b、激素只是在母体内，并没有说在婴儿体内。
        c、我们对这个激素知之甚少。
这是我第一次写argu，更是第一次写aw，憋了一上午就憋出了300个词……看着大家的习作真的有点惭愧啊……

Argu53
The statement that the increasing of melatonin may lead to the signs of distress identified when exposing in strange odor or tape recording seems to be logical. After all, melatonin is known to affect some brain function, which may be likely to influence shyness.
However, increased levels of melatonin before birth causing shyness may not include many other things that would cause shyness among teenagers and it’s not scientific method to persuade us that melatonin is the trigger of being shy.

First of all, more than half of these children showed shyness dose not means the relationship between melatonin and shyness is reasonable. The writer never mentioned the genders of these children. Girls are usually showing more shy attributes than boys. What if all the experimenters are all female? Plus, neither did the author mention the backgrounds of these teenagers, which would deeply influence the development of these children. What’s more, 25 infants may be too small a group to support this experiment.

We lack more detailed knowledge of melatonin about how it exactly works, where it distributes and what influence it will cause. Shyness can be caused by tremendous spurs or hormones which may not include melatonin. Writer’s explanation about melatonin’s affecting some cerebral function may be somewhat too vague or general to support his opinion.

Finally, it is no cogent evidence shown that the increasing of this kind of hormone means it would finally affect infants’ body. For instance, melatonin may not possibly transfer from pregnant women to their babies, thus the quantity in infants body is irrelevant to that in their mothers.

For proving that high levels of melatonin may cause shyness, basic information about melatonin is needed. It is necessary to exclude all possibilities that would lead to shyness when using experiment to support it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
改lyh
The argument contains several facets that are questionable. First, the argument unfairly assumes a causal relationship between increased levels of melatonin and signs of mild stress in the infants. Second, the argument rests on the gratuitous assumption that mild stress will cause shyness .Third ,the argument fails to take into account other possible factors that might have caused(直接cause就可以了吧) shyness in the surveyed infants. Last but not least , the reliability of the  survey is open to doubt. I will discuss each of these facets in turn.
     To begin with ,the arguer fails to establish a causal（fail与causal貌似有点重复，两者都是表示否定的意思，这样感觉像是肯定了） relationship between increased levels of melatonin and signs of mild stress in the infants . First,the arguer does not tell us what is melatonin .We can not（用don’t 好一些吧） know its definition  from the survey ,the arguer only give us a（an） ill-defined concept  that it is a  hormone which  affect some brain functions.(这个句子太拗口了，其实我也不太会写长句子，但是我觉得不应该这样一个定语从句套一个定语从句。)Does it really  affect the infants?（我觉得文章中最好不要有疑问句，这样会显得比较口语化）It is possible the fact that milatonin only have something to do with the pregnant mother（这个主语从句太长了，我觉得把the fact 去掉是可以的，而且用something不太妥当，换个说法或者更具体一些可能更有说服力） .Second ,even assuming（什么意思？） that  melatonin will affect the infants ,it does not mean it will make the infants dipressed（嗯，我觉没想到还可以用depressed表示，不过拼写错了，嘻嘻）. Therefore, the arguer commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification.
     Even if（什么意思？） the increased level  of melatonin will result in mild stress , there arise another problem with this argument , namely  the unfounded causal relationship between signs of mild distress and shyness.（说实话，还是没看懂……我觉得可以把最后一个关键的句子放在前面，然后再在后面写上其他论据）It is normal that a infant feel depressed when faced with some unfamiliar stimulus （好像原文没有说depressed和unfamiliar stimulus有直接关系，不是原文亲口说的最好不要当成攻击点。）.We can not simply consider a（an） infant who is under depress as a shy baby  . It is possible the fact that the surveyed infants are more sensitive to changes of the environment（还是上个定语从句~） .Accordingly,the arguer simply equates mild distress with shyness ,which is unwarranted.  （我觉得一个段第一句话就应该表明主题，最好不要有铺垫。老外喜欢直来直去。这个攻击点稍微有点模糊，不够犀利。）
     Even if signs of mild distress and shyness have a causal association,the arguer fails to rule out other factors that might account for（是造成的意思？） shyness in the surveyed teenagers.The author states that the shyness（应该和are对应shynesses？） of teenagers are outcome（outcomes） of the increase of melatonin when they were infants. However, it is equally  possible that other factors result in the shyness of teenagers, such as new changes of their bodies（我能明白是说在他们小时候，但是表达方式应该换一换，感觉是说这些青少年的孩子……好吧，我想多了……） ,their family background（backgrounds） or their experience .Hence ,the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization .
      Finally ,how the survey was conducted also deserve（主语从句应该用deserves吧） our consideration while evaluating the evidence of survey . The survey only have a sample of 25 infants and it is too small to draw any conclusion from so small （应该加个a，so small a sample）sample. Moreover , the fact that half of the teenagers who grow up from the 25 infants feel shy does not definitely  mean that the percentage  is high .Common sense tell(tells) us that teenagers are more shy than people of other age, therefore , the result that half of the surveyed teenagers feel shy is possible not strange at all.(这句话适当断一断) The arguer should tell us what is the percentage of the common teenagers of the same age who feel shy.
     In summary ,the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading . To make the argument more convincing ,the arguer should tell us more about meltanin and establish a causal relationship between the increased level of meltanin and shyness.what is more,a survey which involve more infants is indispensible . Without this sort of information ,the argument reaches too hasty a conclusion.（建设性应该是具体一些的意见，怎么感觉又是在批评了？呵呵）
首先十分十分抱歉，前两天一直在复习考试，实在没有时间在帮您改文章。真是对不起了……要打要骂随便吧，嘿嘿。
几点小意见：
1、和我一样，不太会写长难句子，稍微有点啰嗦。
2、逻辑性不是很强。我的意见是，宁可一开始写的很少（我这个文章就写了300个词），也不要为了增加字数而凑词，这样只会让读者对你本身的论据更模糊，减少文章的逻辑性。
3、有一些小错误，下次注意下就好啦
寂寞公路
祝好！

maggie-jiangUID: 2666877

ARGUMENT51
逻辑链
1 study 一组用抗生素
                           ----》抗生素对肌肉拉伤的恢复有促进作用
         一组用糖丸
2 2次感染会阻碍恢复速度
                          ------》抗生素对二次感染有protect 和treatment的作用
       抗生素可以促进恢复
3 样本容量2组patients----》可以用于all patients

主要内容：
1 抗生素的实验和二次感染的康复时间没有逻辑关系，即使有，抗生素也一定会二次感染有很好的治疗作用而可以减少康复的时间吗？适用于所有的patients产生正面的效果和适用所有的二次感染的类型吗？
2 样本问题：1 two groups的样本容量       2  快40%的基数是多少，比较对象是谁?
3 治疗时间的加快和医生的关系

ARGUMENT 51

In this argument, the arguer cites a study showing that the muscle strained patients who take antibiotics regularly throughout their treatments recuperate much more quickly than the patients who do not take the antibiotics, therefore the arguer concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment and this study can prove the doctors’ long suspicion. It seems logic but this argument is not convincing as it contains several critical fallacies.

The most important logic fallacy is that the study of taking antibiotics cannot prove the long suspicion of doctors that secondary infections may keep some healing quickly after severe muscle strain. First of all, the arguer fails to give the evidence that during the recuperation time, two groups of patients whether have got the secondary infections or not. If they have never got the secondary infections, how can arguer know the antibiotics’ effects to the secondary infections or imply the relationship between them? Then if e assume that the antibiotics can protect the secondary infection, is it sure that it can be used for treating all types of secondary infections? Thirdly, the effect of the antibiotics may not fit every patient. Probably some patients take the antibiotics which can not get well but also cause some other subsequent illnesses like hypersusceptibility and so on.

Furthermore, the arguer’s conclusion is based on the study which made by only two groups of patients. If these two groups only have four patients, the results of the study are hard to be generalization. Moreover, the first group’s recuperation time which was on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected can not equal to the effects of taking antibiotics. Because the expected time is unknown and the recuperation time of the second group is unknown as well, it is purely speculation that taking antibiotics can reduce the recuperation time.


Finally, taking antibiotics is not the only method to reduce the recover time as the capabilities of doctors is also an important factor to influence the treatment. The first group’s doctor is Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine. Maybe he is more profession than the general physician, Dr. Alton in treating the muscle strain.

In summary, the conclusion of this argument is based a groundless study and has no evidence to support it. Without a broader study that takes into account patient number, types of the secondary infection and the evidences that taking antibiotics can make effects on the secondary infections, etc, this argument will remain unconvincing and should be ignored.

missingqiqiUID: 2688720

原文分析：
论点：Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.
论据：两组实验数据
        第一组：运动医学专家 ---> 服用抗生素 ---> 比预期快40%
        第二组：综合医师---> 糖丸（认为抗生素）---> 没有缩短
攻击点：
1. 原文并没与证明arguer所提到的二次感染会发生在肌肉拉伤的人身上，也没有证明肌肉拉伤的病人容易发生二次感染。这个前提就是没有任何科学依据的
2. 引用了分组研究的试验方法，但是没有提供任何关于两组病人的基本资料，比如年龄、性别和生理情况。有可能服用抗生素的那一组病人比较年轻，身体素质好，而另一组都是年弱多病的老年人，这就并不能说明论点。并且两个医生也各自专业于不同方面，水平和技术也自然会有不同，并且一般情况下运动医学专家可能会更专业于肌肉问题，所以不能排除他的高水平和针对性所造成的恢复时间短。并且也没有提到除了药物以外其他的治疗方案比如饮食、所处环境等是否一致。
3. arguer认为所有肌肉拉伤的人都应该服用抗生素太过于武断。因为抗生素属于杀菌类药物，除了已知到的防止感染外，还会有很多有害的副作用。并且每个人的体质都不一样，因此药物在每个人身上也会出现不同的后果。这样的结论太过仓促，应该考虑全面。
4. 结论：为加强说服力，论者还应该进一步提供有关肌肉拉伤的病人中二次感染的概率有多少，并提供一份科学的研究，证明在相同医生、相同病征、相同病人生理条件以及其他治疗手段、环境相同的情况下，抗生素是能使病人早日康复。

正文：
(1.质疑拉伤和二次感染关系。2.质疑实验的正确性。3.质疑全部病人应该服用抗生素)

The notion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain with muscle would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion according to the results of a study of two groups of patients. However, the arguer did not provide any evidence to reveal the relationship between secondary infections and muscle strain, the details of two experiences and the different effect of the medicine on different patients. So this argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, as mentioned in the argument, the arguer unfairly assumes that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. However, the arguer fails to provide any evidence to support this assumption. The mere fact of a study of two groups of patients does not necessarily indicate that conclusion. It is not entirely possible that secondary infections will happen on the train patients, or patients who have muscle strain would be affected by secondary infections. Thus, have not given these possible scenarios, the fact proves nothing about those secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain.

In the second place, an obvious problem with this argument involves a study itself. The statistical reliability of the study is really questionable. Namely, the arguer provides no evidence that the background of the patients is statistically significant. That is to say, this survey merely involves the different medicines that the two groups of patients have taken and the details of doctors who treat the patients. Except these, some other information cannot be overlooked as important as those mentioned in the argument. For instance, the distinctions between ages, genders and physiologic conditions may lead to a big difference. For youth must have more power on resistance to disease than the old ones in the second group. What is more, the first group which 40 percent quicker than typically expected was treated by the doctor who specializes in sports medicine, who must be more professional and point references to the muscles strain than the doctor who treated the second group as a general physician. Lacking the information about the randomness and the size of the survey sample, the arguer cannot draw a broader recommendation based on the study result.

Last but not the least important, another problem that undermines the argument is that the arguer overlooks other factors that result in the fact that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain who would take antibiotics as part of their treatment. According to the arguer’s recommendation, the conclusion that all patients should take antibiotics is merely due to the results of the first group. However, in all likelihood, this is simply not the case. Except those details refers in the last paragraph, the arguer also ignore the side effects of the antibiotics. Antibiotics are known to kill bacterial, but on the different people, it may cause different consequences. In short in order to properly conclude that antibiotics have ability to help treat patients, the arguer must make more experiences on different kinds of patients to know the consequences the antibiotics brings so that can push the ultimate conclusion finally.

In sum, as it stands the argument is wholly unpersuasive. To bolster this conclusion the author must show more details of the two experiences. Also, the author must point out that whether all patients can fit for the consequence of antibiotics. After all, a false confidence in the effect of antibiotic could be just as dangerous as killing the patients directly.

改Maggie-jiang

模板型的句子
In this argument, the arguer cites a study showing that the muscle strained patients who take antibiotics regularly throughout their treatments recuperate much more quickly than the patients who do not take the antibiotics, therefore the arguer concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment and this study can prove the doctors’ long suspicion. It seems logic but this argument is not convincing as it contains several critical fallacies.

The most important logic fallacy is that the study of taking antibiotics cannot prove the long suspicion of doctors that secondary infections may keep some healing quickly after severe muscle strain. First of all, the arguer fails to give the evidence that during the recuperation time, two groups of patients whether have got the secondary infections or not.[这个句子去掉whether从句，就剩下了two groups of patients，只有主语] If they have never got the secondary infections, how can arguer know the antibiotics’ effects to the secondary infections or imply[这个去掉就可以了] the relationship between them? Then if assume that the antibiotics can protect[原文指出抗生素可以加速恢复，不是保护二次感染，用protect肯定不合适] the secondary infection, is it sure that it can be used for treating all types of secondary infections? Thirdly, the effect of the antibiotics may not fit every patient. Probably some patients take the antibiotics which can not get well but also cause some other subsequent illnesses like hypersusceptibility and so on.[最后总结一下关于此方面的论断是不是更好。]

Furthermore, the arguer’s conclusion is based on the study which made by only two groups of patients. If these two groups only have four patients[是两组一共四人，还是一组是四人？有歧义], the results of the study are hard to be generalization[这里用名词对吗？应该用动词被动吧]. Moreover, the first group’s recuperation time which was on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected can not equal to the effects of taking antibiotics. Because the expected time is unknown and the recuperation time of the second group is unknown as well, it is purely speculation that taking antibiotics can reduce the recuperation time.

Finally, taking antibiotics is not the only method[这句话逻辑有问题，你怎么改支持作者的观点了？承认抗生素是一种方法了？] to reduce the recover time as the capabilities of doctors is also an important factor to influence the treatment. The first group’s doctor is Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine. Maybe he is more profession[这里用名词对吗？] than the general physician, Dr. Alton in treating the muscle strain.

In summary, the conclusion of this argument is based [加一个on] a groundless study and has no evidence to support it. Without a broader study that takes into account patient number, types of the secondary infection and the evidences that taking antibiotics can make effects on the secondary infections, etc, this argument will remain unconvincing and should be ignored.

1.感觉还不错，有自己的观点，但是可以考虑的观点还有很多很大的错误。比如二次感染和肌肉拉伤究竟有没有关系。还有像上次讨论一样，样本数量问题实在是太过普通了，感觉完全没有新意了。
2.语法错误较多
3.我感觉最不好的就是你最后一个观点，居然承认了服用抗生素不仅是唯一的方法，那你就是默认了这是一种方法了，这种转变观点感觉很可怕。
4.还是那句话，仅供参考。

sjxxjUID: 2745756

2 argument
原文分析：
  
1. 论据：一个调查研究的初步结果证实抗生素对肌肉受伤有明显作用------》2.论据：严重肌肉拉伤后的二次感染对一些病人的恢复不利-----》论点：所有被诊断为肌肉拉伤的病人应该用抗生素

主要攻击点：
1.调查本身（从三方面：对照组的同质性质疑
                              指导医生的同质性质疑
                              调查结果的数据模糊性质问

2.假说本身：即使假说（严重肌肉拉伤后的二次感染对一些病人的恢复不利）成立，也不能说所有被诊断为肌肉拉伤的病人应该用抗生素



In this newsletter, the arguer claims that all patients suffering from muscle strain should take antibiotic as part of their treatment. In order to certify the conclusion, the arguer cites a hypothesis proved by some unrefined results of a study of two groups ofpatients. But, the arguer’s sound induction of cause-effect relationship and the support of conclusion itself is obviously skeptical, which lies in two mostfatal fallacies: one results from the deeply incredible effect and theprogression of that study, and, the other lies in the induction of “hypothesis”to conclusion.

Firstly and most fatally, the study of those two groups of patients is full of logic fallacies. First aspect is that,however, the arguer fails to provide the audiences with enough information such as these numbers, ages, even constitutions and so on of the two tested groups of patients. That is to say, the members of the two groups are lack of homogeneous conditions but fraught of uncertainty. Then the second aspect of the problem of the study comes out. The doctor electing method that the first groups were treated by a sport medicine expert while the second one by a general physician also becomes skeptical, because that, the arguer also fails to convince us that the two doctors studying in two distinctly different field did adapted the same treating method and medicine beside antibiotic and sugarpills, on the contrary, this two doctors probably treated patients in a different way. In the third aspect, the data of the result of this study, which the arguer describe as a average proportion for one group and even no proportionfor the other one, is too vague. Consequently, the study itself is not reasonable and questionable.

Secondly, even if the result of the study could certify the hypothesis, which claimed that secondary infections hinderedthe recuperation of these patients with severe muscle strain, and antibiotic does can be made useful to treat severe muscle strain, the arguer cannot draw the conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotic also. However, obviously, that whether it is really dispensable for a patient such as one suffering from a slight muscle strain or a slight muscle injury to take antibiotic is questionable.

According to the analyzing above, it is uncontrovertibly that the arguer’s conclusion cannot be deduced well. In order to justify theconclusion well, the arguer should take these factors into account: for one thing, the study must conform the principle called one-factor-controlled principle. For example, the researcher should confirm that the patients divided into two groups are in a same physical condition such as identical age, same healthy condition and so on, and that those patients take the same medicines except antibiotics and sugar pills. For another, the arguer also should enhance the cause-effectrelationship between the hypothesis (if it is proved) and the conclusion.

改楼上

rosanna1029UID: 2318257

第一组病人—muscle injuries—antibiotics—恢复速度比一般的快40%
第二组病人--             --sugar pills—恢复速度没有显著降低
所以肌肉扭伤后的第二次感染让病人恢复的更慢
因此，所有被诊断为muscle strain的病人都应该被建议服用抗生素

1.        这两组病人的病情是否一样。只说了第一组是muscle injuries，未知是否肌肉扭伤后的第二次感染。第二组病人 不知道是不是肌肉扭伤后的第二次感染，也不知道是不是muscle injuries。
2.        两组病人的病情，年龄分布，健康情况，生活饮食习惯等，也会影响恢复速度。
3.        无法知道sugar pills对病人的影响。
4.        没法说明肌肉扭伤后的第二次感染让病人恢复的更慢，也没法说明抗生素让恢复速度增加。
5.        有的病人是不适合服用抗生素的（这个是攻击结论的。不知道能不能）


We can see from the topic that the patients who took sugar pills need more time to recovery than the patients who took antibiotics. So it seems reasonable to attribute the impact on patients to antibiotics, and the arguer would advise who suffering from muscle strain to take antibiotics. This arugment contains several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing.

First of all, the patients picked up and divided into two groups may not be the secondary infections after severe muscle strain. It even can’t tell what’s the problem with the second group. So there is no causul relationship between the secondary infecions may effect the patients and the result deduced from the study.(from which they are dirved想用这个句型，不知道如何在这里替代deduce)

Secondly, given the two groups have the same symptoms, other factors like their ages and sex, their health, as well as their living habits also have an influence on their recovery. For example, a young man is surely to recovery faster than an old lady in the same situation. After he takes antibiotics while the old lady takes nothing, no one knows it’s the natural ascendancy or the antibiotics made his less recuperation time. We even hardly know whether the suger pills have accelerated or slowed down the rate of recuperation of the Group 2. Besides, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine and a general physician is surely have the difference when treating patients. From above, the antibiotics are not as significant as supposed.

Furthermore, the fact that some people can’t take antibiotics should be taken into account. An antibiotic is a drug that kills or slows the growth of bacteria. Take in too much antibiotics is not good, to say nothing of some silkly old people.

To conclude, the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence and thorough connection between the study and the function of antibiotics. Inabsent of indispensable information, the arguer unwarrantedly draw his or herconclusion in this argument.
:mad: 就是写不长




In this newsletter, the arguer claims that all patients suffering from muscle strain should take antibiotic as part of their treatment. In order to certify the conclusion, the arguer cites a hypothesis proved by some unrefined results of a study of two groups ofpatients. But, the arguer’s sound induction of cause-effect relationship and the support of conclusion itself is obviously skeptical, which lies in two most fatal fallacies（好句子）: one results from the deeply incredible effect and the progression of that study, and, the other lies in（此处的lies in于同句话前面重复，是否可换成from） the induction of “hypothesis”to conclusion.

Firstly and most fatally, the study of those two groups of patients is full of logic fallacies. First aspect is that,however（此处并没有转折关系，用however不妥）, the arguer fails to provide the audiences with enough information such as these（改成the） numbers, ages, even constitutions and so on of the two tested groups of patients. That is to say, the members of the two groups are lack of homogeneous conditions but（应该用and表并列） fraught of uncertainty（整个句子不太明白。成员充满不确定性还是study的结论？如果是成员，是不是应把fraught of提到前面当定语？）. Then the second aspect of the problem of the study comes out. The doctor electing method that the first groups were treated by a sport medicine expert while the second one by a general physician also becomes skeptical, because that, the arguer also fails to convince us that the two doctors studying in two distinctly different field did adapted the same treating method and medicine beside antibiotic and sugarpills, on the contrary, this two doctors probably treated patients in a different way.（这句话太长了） In the third aspect, the data of the result of this study, which the arguer describe as a average proportion for one group and even no proportionfor the other one, is too vague. Consequently, the study itself is not reasonable and questionable(not reasonable和questionable两个互换一下？).

Secondly, even if the result of the study could certify the hypothesis, which claimed that secondary infections hindered the recuperation of these patients with severe muscle strain, and antibiotic does can be made useful to treat severe muscle strain, the arguer cannot draw the conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotic also. However, obviously, that whether it is really dispensable（这里应该用indispensable吧） for a patient such as one suffering from a slight muscle strain or a slight muscle injury to take antibiotic is questionable.

According to the analyzing above, it is uncontrovertibly that the arguer’s conclusion cannot be deduced well. In order to justify theconclusion well, the arguer should take these factors into account: for one thing, the study must conform the principle called one-factor-controlled principle. For example, the researcher should confirm that the patients divided into two groups are in a same physical condition such as identical age, same healthy condition and so on, and that those patients take the same medicines except antibiotics and sugar pills. For another, the arguer also should enhance the cause-effectrelationship between the hypothesis (if it is proved) and the conclusion.

文章从两个角度，一个是攻击study（study没有提供对比性；医生的治疗方法差异，数据太模糊），一个是antibiotic。最后提出建议。用词很好,值得学习！

coxUID: 2730480

原文分析：
           论断：    要建议有肌肉拉伤的病人服用抗生素
           论据：   第一组：患者由运动医学专家治疗—----服用抗生素----康复快
                         第二组： 患者有综合医师治疗-------糖丸----但患者认为是抗生素-----康复时间没明显缩短
     攻击点：
               1. 没有提供任何有关两组病人的资料。有关他们的年龄、性别以及其他生理特征。
               2. 两位医生的经验和水平也会影响病人康复的速度
               3. 实验患者 不能说明所有患者都适合抗生素
The conclusion of this argument is that takingantibiotics is effective to treat all patients who are diagnosed with musclestrain. The conclusion is based on a study of two groups of patients. In the firstgroup, the patients were treated by Dr.Newland and injected by antibiotics, andthey recovered
quicker than typicallyexpected; while the second one was in charge of Dr.Alton and was believed tohave antibiotics but actually not, and their average recuperation time was notsignificant reduced. However, close scrutiny reveals that it contains severalunconvincing assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive.

To begin with,the author falsely assumes that the two group patients are same in general conditions,so that the treatment they recieve can be compared. Yet, the author provides noevidence to substantiate this assumption. Common sense indicates that patientsin various ages and health conditions may have different outcomes even beingtreated the same way. For instance, perhaps the first group of patients are allmen and much younger while the second group of patients are not. Therefore thetwo groups cannot be compared at all.

Additionally,even assuming that the patients of two groups are in same condition, the authorfails to prove that treatment conducted by the Dr.N and A are equivalent exceptin use of antibiotics. Considering their different specializations, it is quitepossible that besides antibiotics, Dr.N also used some other medicines thatfinally contribute to the faster recovery of her patients, or equally perhapsthat Dr. A happened to conducted a special treatment to prolong their recuperationtime. Besides, even the difference in the living evironment and eating habbitsmay result in inaccurate results of the experiment. Without ruling out thesepossibilities, the author cannot convince me with the conclusion.

Finally, evenassuming that the two experiments can prove the rightness of the hypothesisthat antibiotics are effectual in helping patients who are diagnosed with muslestrain, the author cannot apply this conclusion to all patients who arediagnosed with musle strain. Perhaps antibiotics is ineffective or evendangerous to less severe patients; or perhaps some patients , not in the twogroups, are allergic to this antibiotics. Unless the author accounted for allpossibile events, the recommendation is unsound at all.


As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned.To better support this conclusion, the author should provide more evidence tosubstantiate this conclusion. For example,
the two groups of patients are generally thesame in age and health condition, and the two doctors were using the sametreatment other than antibiotics. Besides, the author should also convince methat antibiotics are also helpful in treating less severe muscle strainpatients.

liuyonghaoUID: 2724226

The conclusion in this argument is that all patients suffered from muscle strain had better take antibiotics as part of their treatment. In support of this point ，the arguer cites a study in which one group of patients  who took antibiotics  recover more quickly than the other group of patients who took sugar pills instead . This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws .
     First of all,the statistics of the study  are incomplete and misleadingly vague.The argument fails to tell us the details of the two group of patients ,such as their health condition ,age and life habits.It is possible that the second group of patients are older than the first group or  suffer from more severe muscle strain .Moreover,the number of the patients of the group is unavailable .Therefore,lacking more specific information about the the two groups  of patients ,it is impossible to assess the reliability of the study.
    The argument is also weakened by the fact that it fails to establish a causal relationship between taking antibiotics and  quicker recovery from muscle strain.The argument relies on the assumption that secondary infections may extend the recuperation period of the patients who suffer from severe muscle strain,but there is no data available to indicate the proportion of those who become infected the second time .It is possible that only a fraction of them are likely to have secondary infections.Hence,even if antibiotics can protect people from being infected for the second time ,the arguer fails to convince us antibiotics will lead to quick recuperation.
     In addition ,the arguer fails to consider and rule out other factors that might lead to quicker recovery from muscle strain.To begin with ,common sense tell us that one will recover more quickly if he or she have a good life habit or have a slighter muscle strain.what is more,the     level of the  doctor one turns to  will make a difference also.we are informed that the doctor of  the first group of patients  specializes sports medicine while the other doctor  who take charge of the treatment of  the second group is just a general physician ,there is a good chance the first doctor will give the patients more professional advise.
Finally ,even if antibiotics are able to make patients recuperate quick ,that does not mean it is appropriate to every patient .As is  known to every one that antibiotics  do harm to our health because they have so strong side effects. And antibiotics will be fatal to the people who are allergic to it.consequently,advising all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain

taking antibiotics as part of their treatment is presumptuous.
    To sum up,the conclusion draw in this argument is invalid and unwarranted . To substantial the claim ,the arguer should give more information about the two groups to make it more scientific. In addition ,the arguer should also establish a causal relationship between taking antibiotics and reduction of recuperation time from muscle strain.
改cox:
（直接在这上面改了，没装microword2007）
原文分析：
           论断：    要建议有肌肉拉伤的病人服用抗生素
           论据：   第一组：患者由运动医学专家治疗—----服用抗生素----康复快
                         第二组： 患者有综合医师治疗-------糖丸----但患者认为是抗生素-----康复时间没明显缩短
     攻击点：
               1. 没有提供任何有关两组病人的资料。有关他们的年龄、性别以及其他生理特征。
               2. 两位医生的经验和水平也会影响病人康复的速度
               3. 实验患者 不能说明所有患者都适合抗生素
The conclusion of this argument is that takingantibiotics is effective to treat all patients who are diagnosed with musclestrain. The conclusion is based on a study of two groups of patients. In the firstgroup, the patients were treated by Dr.Newland and injected by antibiotics, andthey recovered
quicker than typicallyexpected; while the second one was in charge of (这里用错了，应该是be charged by)Dr.Alton and was believed tohave antibiotics but actually not, and their average recuperation time was notsignificant reduced. However, close scrutiny reveals that it contains severalunconvincing assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive.

To begin with,the author(改为arguer) falsely assumes that the two group patients are (加the)same in general conditions,so that the treatment they recieve can be compared. Yet(用however更好), the author provides noevidence to substantiate this assumption. Common sense indicates that patientsin various （不是各种各样，而是different）ages and health conditions may have different outcomes even beingtreated the same way. For instance, perhaps (去掉，因为这里本就是举例)the first group of patients are allmen and much younger while the second group of patients are not. Therefore thetwo groups cannot be compared at all.

Additionally,even assuming that the patients of two groups are in （the）same condition, the authorfails to prove that treatment conducted by the Dr.N and A are equivalent exceptin use of antibiotics. Considering their different specializations, it is quitepossible that besides antibiotics, Dr.N also used some other medicines thatfinally contribute to the faster recovery of her patients, or equally perhapsthat Dr. A happened to conducted a special treatment to prolong their recuperationtime. Besides, even the difference in the living evironment and eating habbitsmay result in inaccurate results of the experiment. Without ruling out thesepossibilities, the author cannot convince me with the conclusion.

Finally, evenassuming that the two experiments can prove the rightness of the hypothesisthat antibiotics are effectual in helping patients who are diagnosed with muslestrain, the author cannot apply this conclusion to all patients who arediagnosed with musle strain. Perhaps antibiotics is ineffective or evendangerous to less severe patients; or perhaps some patients , not in the twogroups, are allergic to this antibiotics. Unless the author accounted for allpossibile events, the recommendation is unsound at all.


As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned.To better support this conclusion,（this 指哪个，不明） the author should provide more evidence tosubstantiate this conclusion. For example,
the two groups of patients are generally thesame in age and health condition, and the two doctors were using the sametreatment other than antibiotics. Besides, the author should also convince methat antibiotics are also helpful in treating less severe muscle strainpatients.