【1010G精英组】ARGUMENT51 B组回收站

weaselUID: 2739489

习作提交时间为22日13点前，互改提交时间为22日晚上10点前

------------------------------------------------------------------


51.Thefollowing appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep somepatients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis hasnow 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 antibioticsregularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average,40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, allbeing treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills,although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their averagerecuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients whoare diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics aspart of their treatment."

weaselUID: 2739489

In order to convince others that antibiotics have positive effects on patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain, the author presents us seemly strong reasons, organizing an experiment that contains two groups. While we first glance at this argument, it seems somewhat credible. However, through further analysis about all the relevant evidence, the argument is questioned with the following aspects.

Primarily, though seemly detail experiment process is well presented by the author, it also lacks necessary explanation related, referring to the experiment’s condition, to make itself convincing. When facing an experiment, one must consider the number of who attended it firstly. If each of the two groups only has two patients, the consequence of the experiment proves nothing more than a covered truth. In addition, how about all relevant patients’ situations, including their ages, body health and so on? There is a circumstance that they could suffer other diseases, which can exert an negative influence on their muscles’ healing, at the same time when the experiment is processing. Furthermore, does the two groups’ healing environment locate in the same place and in the same season? Before such doubts are analyzed, the speaker can not cite the experiment as evidence.

Next, two doctors with different professional backgrounds can also not provide sound reasons to support the experiment’s result. As a common sense, a scientific experiment, no matter what, should be kept all unrelated variable parameters same and then get the truth from the only parameter’s variety. Therefore, when considering this experiment in the topic, one must suspect that whether Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, offer more useful means for muscle healing, and on the other hand, Dr. Alton, a general physician, did not provide patients with necessary matters, which need attention, because of his lacking experience. It is entirely possible. So in this argument, the doctors’ backgrounds must be controlled to some extent so as to have no impact on the experiment’s result.

Finally, even if antibiotics have functions on muscle strains’ healing, the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is also unwarranted. There is no must that everyone who is diagnosed as muscle strain，should take antibiotics as parts of treatment no matter whether his/her injure is serious or slight. More medicines mean more expenditure, which is not economic for the poor just with slight muscle strains. Furthermore, we all understand the biological fact that frequently use of antibiotics will lead to untoward effect. It is entirely possible that the more you use antibiotics, the fast you lose your immunity. Thus, whether antibiotics should be advised to patients with muscle strains is worth being considered seriously.

Overall, after the analysis, the speaker definitely lacks enough evidence to support the final conclusion. Therefore, to make his/her statement more credible, more efforts should be taken with detail experiment data and overall considering. Otherwise, who is going to use the antibiotics with out doubts and worries?

橘子汁UID: 2672285

The author points out in this argument that a hypothesis by some doctors that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing up quickly after severe muscle strain has been proved by preliminary results of a study. The study, consisting of two groups of patients, was conducted by two doctors respectively. Though some data and results were made by the study, it is quite obvious that the author’s statement gets stuck in some unavoidable problems, thus making his point unpersuasive.

First of all, the study itself was not rigorous. Given no information about the conditions of the two groups of patients except for only one thing in common that they’re all suffering from muscle strain, we cannot hastily believe the author’s judgment that the first group’s recuperation was due to the use of antibiotic. Suppose that the patients in the first group were younger and in better health condition compared to the other group, it was absolutely possible that they got healed more quickly. Besides the ellipsis of the patients’ necessary conditions, it is also possible that the different time the two groups of patients took to recover might also be attributed to the two different doctors’ speciality, experience and skill. Moreover, we do not know whether the sugar pills had some uncharted effects on muscle injuries. If they did, then the experiment failed. It is generally acknowledged that the subjects of a control shall be treated as in a parallel experiment except for the omission of the procedure which is used as a standard of comparison in judging experiment effects, and it is not authentic to make any judgment with so many unknown facts.

Even if we accept the result of the experiment, it was wrong that the author thought muscle strain would surely lead to secondary infections. There’s no evidence proving the premise of the experiment that secondary infections were a certain out-come of muscle strain, or muscle strain is prone to secondary infections. The author seems to forcibly relate the hypothesis that secondary infections may prevent the patients’ recovering after muscle strain to a study of two groups of patients on the effects of different pills they take to recuperate from muscle injuries. It is not difficult to figure out that this was a logical mistake carelessly made by the author, which make his statement unreasonable.

Finally, the author strongly advises all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Yet it can be concluded from the analysis above that whether antibiotics are highly effective in muscle injuries treatment is questionable. And if antibiotics bring about other harmful side-effects while healing the physical injuries, it is not worth trying the medicine at the risk of the patients’ health.

Overall, the author has given us hope that the possible secondary infections after muscle strain could be cured by antibiotics. Yet further accurate experiments and studies are needed to support his assumptions and at last benefit human beings.


明天还要考试啊啊啊.....................

sola-nanaUID: 2744594

正文段：
1.显然 结论和假设的限定条件不同 实验没有给出被试验者是否是第二次拉伤后的严重感染者，所以实验不能证明假设，得出的结论当然和假设是有出入的.
2.没有遵循变量一致的原则（两组实验者的状况以及医生的情况）
3.急于得出结论，并不是所有人都能用抗生素的

The argument tries to convince its readersthat all patients with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics,by providing two contrast test, one of which was conducted by a doctorspecialized in sports medicine with patients taking antibiotics regularly and the recuperation time as 40 percent quicker than expected, while the other groupwas treated by a general physician with patients taking sugar pills undoubtedly believing the pills were antibiotics and their recuperation time was not significantly reduced.

However, there are no qualifications of thepatients in both the two groups, with the assumption that all patients in thestudy were secondarily infected after severe muscle strain, as the study isconducted on the basis of the hypothesis of doctors, which is the whole premiseof the argument. Thus, the study couldnot support the hypothesis, of course, the conclusion is ungrounded as itstands.

This study is not designed as the principleof unification of variables is not followed. Without the description of thebasic condition of the patients, the generalization of the conclusion islimited with the constraint of the particular context or situation in whichthey are conducted. It is possible that the first group of patients is younger and healthier compared with the second group, who are more likely to recover from muscle strain. It is also possible that the patients in the second group suffers from more severe injuries or even they may have other symptoms in theprocess of the study. It cannot be denied that it is other features that the outcome,the recuperation time of the first is quicker than the second group, of the study is resulted from. Besides, the experience and capability of the doctormight have a significant influence on the recuperation time of the patients. Generallyspeaking, it is more common for doctors in sports medicine to have experience intackling patients with muscle strain and their treatment is more effective andmore targeted to such patients compared with general physicians. The recuperation time may be shortened by many other possible alternatives regardless of antibiotics.

The argument gives the conclusion too hastily that all patients would be well advised to take antibiotics without anyconsideration of possibility that some of the patients suffering from muscle strain could not take antibiotics as they are allergy to it. It is also possible that antibiotics cannot work well on some patients as a result of the particular physical conditions.

Overall, the argument should provide more attention on the qualifications of the patients in the study, according to the hypothesisof doctors and keeps the variables unified, which means the same conditions ofthe patients without any other symptom and the same doctor in the same circumstances in the process of the study. After all, a variety of situations must be included in order to make a general statement about antibiotics to makethe conclusion more convicing.

hopneyUID: 2626063

This statement in a medical newsletter claims that a hypothesis has been proved by two experiments. When the experiment process is seriously thought of, the result cannot well convince the readers after repeated deliberation.

The two experiments are to attest the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep patients from healing quickly after sever muscle strain. The experiment is to prove whether a secondary infection will effect patients' healing or not. In the logic, the experiment should set up a group of patients who receives infection, while the other group of patients--a control group--doesn’t receive. Only in this way, the affection of secondary infection to patient can be found out. It is a mistake that other factors which might affect patients' healthy are not excluded in the control group. The possible factors are the doctors who treated the different group of patients and the patients. However, the doctors are different individual, one specializes in sports medicine and the other doctos is a general phsician. What’s more, the patients are different, and their age, gender, and health condition are not clearly descripted, which can properly affect the results in end.

A similar mistake is made in the treatment to the patients. In order to find out secondary infection will affect the patients' health or not, the experiment should present the infection on one group while the control group doesn't. In the experiment, the doctor treated the patients by taking antibiotics, while the other group took sugar pills. A fatal problem is the sugar pill may slow the average recuperation time, and this assumption isn't excluded. Even though this is just an assumption, it cannot be ignored in a science medicine experiment.

After the experiment, an advice is given: all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain can take antibiotics as part of their treatment. The experiment didn't show that the antibiotics have any medical function, which just shown that the recuperation time is shorter than the average. So the advice has not foundation at all.

In conclusion, three arguments exist in the experiment to attest the hypothesis. If scientists want to attest the hypothesis, more attention should pay to the possible factors which can affect the result. Only when the other factors besides of the secondary infection are excluded, the result can convince the common people and be more reasonable.

3个argument
1。实验组有多个不同因素，不能排除其他因素的影响
2.过程中给出的方式不一直，不能排除sugar的作用
3.结论建议错误，只能说康复时间缩短，不能断定有治疗作用

weaselUID: 2739489

huan家里网怀了,hopney如果还没改我的就麻烦等他下

hopneyUID: 2626063

In order to convince others that antibiotics have positive effects on patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain(us that secondary infections may keep somepatients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain,作者目的不是证明抗体的作用,而是说infection的作用), the author presents us seemly strong reasons, organizing an experiment that contains two groups. While（when) we first glance at this argument, it seems somewhat credible(seems to be somewhat credible). However, through further analysis about all the relevant evidences, the argument is questioned with the following aspects.

Primarily, though seemly detail experiment process is well presented by the author, it also lacks necessary explanation related, referring to the experiment’s condition, to make itself convincing. When facing an experiment, one must consider the number of (people） who attended（s） it firstly. If each of the two groups only has two patients（这个试验中没有谈人数，MS我们可以不去质疑吧，不像Arg53,有25人）, the consequence of the experiment proves nothing more than a covered truth. In addition, how about all relevant patients’ situations, including their ages, body health and so on? There is a circumstance that they could suffer other diseases, which can exert an negative influence on their muscles’ healing, at the same time when the experiment is processing. Furthermore, does the two groups’ healing environment locate in the same place（chinglish,应该是住址是否在一个地方吧） and in the same season? Before such doubts are analyzed, the speaker can not cite the experiment as evidence.

Next, two doctors with different professional backgrounds can also not provide sound reasons to support the experiment’s result. As a common sense, a scientific experiment, no matter what, should be kept all unrelated variable parameters same （赞一个）and then get the truth from the only parameter’s variety. Therefore, when considering this experiment in the topic, one must suspect that whether Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, offer more useful means for muscle healing, and on the other hand, Dr. Alton, a general physician, did not provide patients with necessary matters, which need attention, because of his lacking experience. It is entirely possible. So in this argument, the doctors’ backgrounds must be controlled to some extent so as to have no impact on the experiment’s result.

Finally, even if antibiotics have functions on muscle strains’ healing, the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is also unwarranted. There is no must that everyone who is diagnosed as muscle strain，should take antibiotics as parts of treatment no matter whether his/her injure is serious or slight. More medicines mean more expenditure, which is not economic for the poor just with slight muscle strains. Furthermore, we all understand the biological fact that frequently (这里应该是frequent，use作名词吧）use of antibiotics will lead to untoward effect. It is entirely possible that the more you use antibiotics, the fast（er） you lose your immunity. Thus, whether antibiotics should be advised to patients with muscle strains is worth being considered seriously.

Overall, after the analysis, the speaker definitely lacks enough evidence to support the final conclusion. Therefore, to make his/her statement more credible, more efforts should be taken with detail experiment data and overall considering. Otherwise, who is going to use the antibiotics with out doubts and worries?

weasel比较多虑，哈哈，关注了一些非主要的细节

huan19880122UID: 2657720

第一段：总结论点、提出逻辑错误
第二段：指出两个错误假设
1、        康复时间只于二次感染有关
2、        不服用抗生素必然导致二次感染
第三段：提出实验的错误，样本数量不足、两组缺乏比较性
第四段：指出严重肌肉损伤与结论任何肌肉损伤患者的区别并点出乱用抗生素的害处
第五段：结尾

This statement seems logical at first sight, the author draws a conclusion that all the muscle strain patients should take antibiotics as parts of their treatment deriving from a study of two compared groups. However, after a case by case analyzing, not only the conclusion is dubious can we find out, but the study which the conclusion derived from failed to build a rigorous justification as well.

Basically, the study is designed depending on two incorrect assumptions: the duration of recuperation is only related to the secondary infections; not taking antibiotics will definitely result in secondary infections. Firstly, the duration of recuperation is a complicated question relating to many factors, such as level of the course, the physical fitness, nutritional status etc. Without ruling out these and other factors, the author can not employ the recuperation time to judge the effect of secondary infections. Secondly, a secondary infection, similar to the duration of recuperation, is a result depending on many complex factors. If the patient is in a fine condition and live in a quite well circumstances, even he have not taken any antibiotic at all, he may not get into secondary infections. Otherwise, the opposite situation even if he takes antibiotic throughout his treatment, he may have secondary infections caused by a drug-resistant strain.

What is more, the author also failed to provide the number of the patients that involved in the study. Only if the number is sufficient can we assume the study is meaningful. More importantly, whether the comparability exists between the two groups is still doubtful. As the author says, that the two groups are treated by two different doctors –one specializes in sports medicine and a general physician –will assuredly added various factors to the study. To be specific, two ways of treating, two ways of medicating, two groups of patients ; unique nutritional status, unique physical fitness even unique attitude, all of these above indicate the lack of comparability of the two groups and make the conclusion basing on the comparison collapse.

Even if we accept the results above are reasonable, the conclusion remains questionable. There is a significant distinction between the beginning “severe muscle strain” and the conclusion “all patients”. The arguer also failed to take the disadvantage of antibiotics into consideration, which has come to light nowadays.（感觉没说透，但是不知道该怎么说）

To sum up, the author could hardly support his conclusion that all the muscle strain patients would be advised to take antibiotics throughout their treatment for the unfounded assumptions and a dubious study. To make the statement more convincingly, the arguer should pay more attention to the rigorousness of a study and the logicality of an inference. In this way, it would be more logically acceptable.

sola-nanaUID: 2744594

This statement in a medical newsletter claims that a hypothesis has been proved by two experiments. When the experiment process is seriously thought of, the result cannot well convince the readers after repeated deliberation.

The two experiments are to attest the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. The experiment is to prove whether a secondary infection will effect patients' healing or not不准确，是影响其时间的长短而不是影响病人的治疗（这样说感觉很像影响治疗效果...）. In the logic, the去掉 the experiment should set up a group不合适
of patients who receives infection, while the other group of patients--a control group--doesn’t receive. Only in this way, the affection of secondary infection to patient can be found out. It is a mistake that other factors which might affect patients' healthy are not excluded in the control group. The possible factors are the doctors who treated the different groups of patients and the patients. 表意不明..翻译一下就会感觉不对：可能的因素是医生和病人...应该说的再具体一些However,这里不应该用转折词啊..前一句不是你后两句的总述句吗？ the doctors are different individuals, one specializes in sports medicine and the other doctos doctor is a general physician应该继续分析啊，他们专攻方面不同，对治疗有什么影响啊？. What’s more, the patients are different, and their age, gender, and health conditions are not clearly descripted, which can properly affect the results in the end.

A similar mistake is made in the treatment to the patients. In order to find out secondary infection will affect the patients' health or not,（find out the proof that.../find out whether secondary infection will affect...） the experiment should present the infection on one group while the control group doesn't. In the experiment, the doctor treated the patients by taking antibiotics, while the other group took sugar pills. A fatal problem（是指不能解决的问题，比方说生与死的问题..这里应该用mistake） is the sugar pill may slow the average recuperation time, and this assumption isn't excluded. Even though this is just an assumption, it cannot be ignored in a science medicine experiment.

After the experiment, an advice is given: all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain can文中的意思不是可以，而是被建议 take antibiotics as part of their treatment. 可以加个转折词The experiment didn't show that 应加上whether，否则有语病嫌疑哦~ the antibiotics have any medical function, which just shown为什么用分词形式啊？ that the recuperation time is shorter than the average. So the advice has not foundation at all.

In conclusion, three arguments论据的意思吗？ exist in the experiment to attest the hypothesis. If scientists want to attest the hypothesis, more attention should pay to (be paid to) the possible factors which can affect the result. Only when the other factors besides of the secondary infection are excluded,有些表意不明呢... the result can convince 应该用倒装..the common people普通人？ and be more reasonable.

有些词句需要好好斟酌下，不要只从中文的角度考虑，看过那么多eco，尝试着模仿下别人的句子也是不错滴~~O(∩_∩)O~~

huan19880122UID: 2657720

改 weasel


觉得有问题的地方
好的地方



额 又掉色...  
In order to convince others that antibiotics have positive effects（不准确，建议所有病人服用并不等于正面作用）
on patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain, the author presents us seemly（得体的、适宜的，应该是seemingly） strong reasons, organizing an experiment that contains two groups. While we first glance at this argument, it seems somewhat credible. However, through further analysis about all the relevant evidence, the argument is questioned with the following aspects.

Primarily, though seemly(同上，是不是可以换个其他词) detail experiment process （感觉怪怪的，改成the detail of experiment process是不是好一点，并且原句没有冠词）is well presented by the author（可以去掉）, it also lacks necessary explanation related, referring to the experiment’s（’s去掉，名词作定语） condition, to make itself convincing(这个长句写的感觉不顺，是不是可以重新组织下位置或去掉最后那个目的状语). When facing an experiment, one must consider the number of who attended（这样理解，who attended是进行实验人的，而不是被试验的对象…换个动词或者可以直接用samples，如果用who+v. 那么前面缺个定于从句的修饰的中心词，比如，the number of patients who …） it firstly. If each of the two groups only has two patients, the consequence of the experiment proves nothing more than a covered truth（赞）. In addition, how about all relevant patients’ situations, including their ages, body health and so on?(这句有很浓的中式英语的味道) There is a circumstance that they could suffer（表示得病时，不及物，suffer from） other diseases, which can exert an negative influence on their muscles’ healing, at the same time when（是不是重复了？） the experiment is processing. Furthermore, does the two groups’ healing environment locate in the same place and in the same season? Before such doubts are analyzed, the speaker can not cite the experiment as evidence.


写的感觉有点乱缺乏条理性

Next（好像next一般不这样用，建议换一个词）, two doctors with different professional backgrounds can also not provide sound reasons to support the experiment’s result. As a common sense, a scientific experiment, no matter what, should be kept all unrelated（不恰当，不是不相关，没有关系的话就不会影响实验结果了对不对…我也没想出来用什么词） variable parameters same（不一定是完全一样，用all也太绝对，这句话我觉得如果表达成——应该通过控制变量的方法控制我们暂不进行研究的参数
）
and then get the truth from the only parameter’s variety. Therefore, when considering this experiment in the topic

（不知道是什么意思~）, one must suspect that whether Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, offer more useful means for muscle healing, and on the other hand, Dr. Alton, a general physician, did not provide patients with necessary matters, which need attention, because of his lacking experience. It is entirely possible. So in this argument, the doctors’ backgrounds must be controlled to some extent so as to have no impact on the experiment’s result.

Finally, even if antibiotics have functions on muscle strains’ healing（我有点叫真哈~不是对肌肉扭伤治疗有用，他的作用是防止感染）, the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is also unwarranted. There is no must that everyone who is diagnosed as muscle strain，should take antibiotics as parts of treatment no matter whether his/her injure is serious or slight. More medicines mean more expenditure, which is not economic for the poor just with slight muscle strains. Furthermore, we all understand the biological fact that frequently use(改成不合理使用更好) of antibiotics will lead to untoward effect. It is entirely（用的次数过多，可以考虑换个词） possible that the more you use antibiotics, the fast you lose your immunity.（这句话不是事实，去掉） Thus, whether antibiotics should be advised to（加all，有些病人需要使用抗生素是没有疑问的） patients with muscle strains is worth being considered seriously.

Overall, after the analysis, the speaker definitely lacks enough evidence to support the final conclusion. Therefore, to make his/her statement more credible, more efforts should be taken with detail experiment data and overall considering. Otherwise, who is going to use the antibiotics with out doubts and worries?

橘子汁UID: 2672285

（GOD为什么我的中文字老是没颜色。。）
改nana

The argument tries to convince its readers that all patients with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics, by providing two contrast test(s), one of which was conducted by a doctor specialized in sports medicine with patients taking antibiotics regularly and the recuperation time as 40 percent quicker than expected, while the other group was treated by a general physician with patients taking sugar pills undoubtedly(undoubted是形容sth.或sb.，我不知道可不可以表示主观的感受，但我感觉用在这里不好，而且有些多余) believing the pills were antibiotics and their recuperation time was not significantly reduced.
(我觉得句子太长了，不是说长句不好，但长句要让人感觉舒服才好……可以在by providing那里就分另外一句，或者推敲出另外一种把所有东西并起来的结构，而不是想到哪里就用with和while加上去)

However, there are no qualifications of the patients in both the(去掉the) two groups, with the assumption that all patients in the study were secondarily infected after severe muscle strain, as the study is(was) conducted on the basis of the hypothesis of doctors, which is the whole premise of the argument. Thus, the study could not support the hypothesis, (这里加and)of course, the conclusion is ungrounded as it stands.

This study is not designed as the principle of unification of variables is not followed(这句话通么…). Without the description of the basic condition(s) of the patients, the generalization of the conclusion is limited with the constraint of the particular context or situation in which they are conducted. It is possible that the first group of patients is (patients of the first group were) younger and healthier compared with the second group, who (这个who你是想指the first group，但是根据句子关系它已经指的是the second group了) are more likely to recover from muscle strain. It is also possible that the patients in the second group suffers(ed) from more severe injuries or even they may have other symptoms in the process of the study. It cannot be denied that it is (because of )other features(改为factors比较好) that the outcome,(改为“—”吧…..) the recuperation time(去掉time，不能说time is quicker吧？) of the first is quicker than the second group, of the study is resulted from(没懂这句…但感觉结构不对). Besides, the experience and capability of the doctor might have a significant influence on the recuperation time of the patients. Generally speaking, it is more common for doctors in sports medicine to have experience in tackling patients with muscle strain and their treatment is more effective and more targeted to such patients( and以后的句子主语已经变成their treatment了，怎么又来了个compare with general physicians)compared with general physicians. The recuperation time may be shortened by many other possible alternatives regardless of(这个是不管的意思，改为other than 比较好) antibiotics.

The argument gives the conclusion too hastily that all patients would be well advised to take antibiotics without any consideration of possibility that some of the patients suffering from muscle strain could not take antibiotics as they are allergy to it. It is also possible that antibiotics cannot work well on some patients as a result of the(改为some吧，而且as a result of用在这里不是特别好) particular physical conditions.

Overall, the argument should provide(就pay attention to吧，我不知道可不可以用provide attention on) more attention on the qualifications of the patients in the study, according to the hypothesis of doctors and keeps the variables unified, which means the same conditions of the patients without any other symptom and the same doctor in the same circumstances in the process of the study. After all, a variety of situations must be included in order to make a general statement about antibiotics to make the conclusion more convincing.

那个，我觉得你太想用长句了，但是长句普遍用得不是很好。注意长句不是死拉着一句话不打句号。其实很多地方可以写句号换下一句了，长句的存在只是一种特殊的结构或解释的需要。写长句可以，但是不要通篇都which, while, as， 就算用也要特别特别小心。不是想到哪里就直接在后面加一个看上去合理其实不合理的。我觉得这个阶段可以先少用长句，因为这个阶段写ARGUMENT逻辑还不是很清楚，所以很容易因为长句给读你文章的人误解，而且究其原因主要以你句子的结构错误为主。等到后面逻辑比较清楚了对句子结构掌握也比较娴熟了再做一些这方面的润色比较好。

希望你能自己领悟下我要说的。。。加油！

weaselUID: 2739489

这下我赚了，被2个人改？难道要我改你们俩？不过要晚一点啊，今天要赶论文

weaselUID: 2739489

蓝色：good job
红色：flaw
粉红：sum-up

The author points out in this argument thata hypothesis by some doctors that secondary infections may keep some patientsfrom healing up quickly after severe muscle strain has been proved bypreliminary results of a study. The study, consisting of two groups ofpatients, was conducted by two doctors respectively.Though some data and results were made by the study, it is quite obvious thatthe author’s statement gets stuck in some unavoidableproblems, thus making his point unpersuasive.

First of all, the study itself was not rigorous. Given no（这里加个修饰会不会好一点，并不是完全no information，毕竟还是有医生的情况） information about the conditionsof the two groups of patients except for only one thing in common that they’reall suffering from muscle strain, we cannot hastilybelieve the author’s judgment that the first group’s recuperation was due tothe use of antibiotic. Suppose that the patients in the first group wereyounger and in better health condition compared to the other group, it wasabsolutely possible that they got healed more quickly. Besidesthe ellipsis of the patients’ necessary conditions, it is also possiblethat the different time the two groups of patients took to recover might alsobe attributed to the two different doctors’ speciality, experience and skill. 这里应该更深入一点 Moreover, we do not know whether thesugar pills had some uncharted effects onmuscle injuries. If they did, then the experimentfailed. It is generally acknowledged that the subjects of a controlshall be treated as in a parallel experiment except for the omission of theprocedure which is used as a standard of comparison in judging experimenteffects, and it is not authentic to make any judgment with so many unknownfacts.

这段本来是很充实的，但是再最后的部分，把很多批驳点放在一起，草草带过，略显拥挤，后面的句子表述也略显仓促，我想，你可能是出于上下字数协调的考虑，故意的
建议另起一段，与其摆出所有的逻辑错误，不如找几个典型地深入地好，毕竟，考官看的是分析的能力，不是单纯的找错游戏，瑕不掩瑜，至于用词以及句型的把握，个人认为很漂亮了：）

Even if we accept the result of theexperiment, it was wrong that the author thought muscle strain would surelylead to secondary infections. There’s no evidence proving the premise of the experiment that secondary infectionswere a certain out-come of muscle strain, or muscle strain is prone tosecondary infections. The author seems to forciblyrelate the hypothesis that secondary infectionsmay prevent the patients’ recovering after muscle strain to a study of two groups of patients on the effectsof different pills they take to recuperate from muscle injuries. It is notdifficult to figure out that this was a logical mistake carelessly made by theauthor, which make his statement unreasonable.

三句分别是这样的，被诊断ms的人必然会导致二次感染是错误的；没有证据表明二次感染必然会出现在ms之后或者ms本身就是二次感染；作者强制地建立二次感染会影响到病人恢复时间和这个。。。研究结果的关系；这里面第一句是主旨没问题，第二句就有一点重复了，第三句可以作为第一句的延伸，，anyway，逻辑没有错误，就是这段闻到了一贯的模板味，后面建议更深入一点

你的意思是想表达参加试验的人并不都是二次感染，即使试验证明了第一组确实因为是服用了antibiotics恢复的更快，也不能说明二次感染阻碍了他们恢复，因为不是所有参加试验的人都二次感染

Finally, the author strongly advises allthe patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as partof their treatment. Yet it can be concluded from the analysis above thatwhether antibiotics are highly effective in muscle injuries treatment isquestionable. And if antibiotics bring about other harmful side-effects whilehealing the physical injuries, it is not worth trying the medicine at the riskof the patients’ health.

这段就显得虎头蛇尾了，从上到下是倒三角的

Overall, the author has given us hope thatthe possible secondary infections after muscle strain could be cured byantibiotics. Yet further accurate experiments and studies are needed to supporthis assumptions and at last benefit human beings.

表达很赞，像你学习！
逻辑没有什么问题，论证广度够了，深度不足，，有个帖子一定能够帮助你https://bbs.gter.net/thread-630644-1-1.html

本着互相负责的态度，言语如有不当，见谅！
有什么疑问，欢迎讨论

youngstoneUID: 2670818

补作业
In this argument, the arguer concludes that secondary infections after severe muscle strain impede the recovery of patients. To substantiate the conclusion, the author provides the evidence that the recovery time of two groups of patients’ treated by different doctors differs because one group took antibiotics while the other group didn’t. In addition, the author also suggests that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics during their treatment. While clearly examining the evidence, we may find that much is missing when we want to build the causal relationship between the evidence and the first conclusion. And it is too hasty to draw the second conclusion, namely the suggestion the author put forward.

The first big problem in the survey of the two groups lies in the difference of doctors. The first group of patients was treated by Dr. Newland while the second group by Dr. Alton. As a sports-medicine-specialized doctor, Dr. Newland has an obvious advantage over Dr. Alton, who is a general physician. Common knowledge tells us, a doctor who specialized in sports medicine may have more effective methods in treating muscle strain and may shorten the recovery time of the patients. It is entirely possible that Dr. Newland’ perfect treating method rather than the antibiotic leads to the shortening of the recovery time. Because of the difference of doctors, the treatment result cannot prove that antibiotic has something to do with the muscle strain.

The second largest problem is that there is no exact information concerning the healthy conditions of the two groups of patients. Maybe the first group of patients is stronger than patients of the second group and they usually recover more swiftly than common people. Thus we do not know whether it is the taking of antibiotic or the good healthy conditions that result in the shortening of the recuperation time. Without ruling out possible factors that can explain the 40% decrease of recuperation time, I cannot accept that it is the antibiotic that has bearing on the treatment result.

In the third place, the suggestion that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics during their treatment is too hasty. Firstly, the evidence in the argument does not mention the seriousness of the muscle strain. Therefore, we do not know if the treatment of all kinds of muscle strain can benefit from the antibiotics. Secondly, there is no information about the side effect of antibiotics. Even if antibiotics can speed the recuperation, there may be some terrible and subtle side effect on patients. Maybe the immunity of patients is seriously influenced and they may become more vulnerable than ever when facing other illness. Even if the antibiotics can shorten the recuperation time, such kind of side effect is much more serious. The patients’ immunity ability may be sacrificed for a 40% decrease in recuperation time and such sacrifice is not worthwhile at all.

To sum up, the conclusion that antibiotics can shorten the recuperation time is unjustified since the evidences the author provides lead little support to the conclusion. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer should make sure that the treatment and the healthy conditions of the two groups are exactly the same. Beside, a further investigation of the seriousness of muscle strain and the side effect of antibiotics are needed to better evaluate the suggestion that all muscle strain suffers should take antibiotics as a part of their treatment.