【1010G精英组】ARGUMENT51 Ambition组回收站

lvruochenUID: 2792806

ARGUMENT51
4.22  17：00之前上交

4.21 完成commentary
4.22  20：30BS
注意多预习出一个机动题目，谢谢

51The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."

请大家看改作文指南
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=670640&page=1#pid1770257414



参考资料
有关一类涉及药物和健康问题的argument题目的思路探讨
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=717568&page=1#pid1770673964
关于破题的INSPIRING INTERVIEW 推荐！
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=130665&page=1#pid566814

另外感谢F组，学习了

annkeUID: 2605122

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."
WORDS: 282          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2010-4-21 16:44:00

1调查类错误：样本数量不清楚。
2Dr.Newland更专业。specialize。muscle strain-二次感染-抗生素
340%很模糊
Merely based on suspicious evidence, the augur draws a conclusion that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and suggests all patients diagnosed with muscle strain had better take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, the argument above constitutes several logical flaws.
First of all, the augur presumes that all patients who diagnosed with muscle strain would necessarily get secondary infections. Unfortunately, there is high possibility for muscle strain patients would not infections, considering the injury only occur under skin. Therefore, the augur falsely assumes that muscle strain undoubtedly relates with secondary infections.
Even though muscle strain patients greatly prone to get infected, as the augur assumes, there is no definite requirement that all patients should take antibiotics. According to the experiment provided, we just cannot conclude that it is because of antibiotics that the first group recover faster than the second group. As the two groups of patients are treated by different doctors--Dr. Newland, who specializes in sports medicine, seems clearly more professional than Dr. Alton, who is a general physician, it is plausible to owe the faster recovery to antibiotics. For example, Dr.Newland could suggest the first groups to take some assistant exercise to strengthen the sick muscle, while Dr.Alton ignored. Without ruling out such possibilities, the advice of augur about taking antibiotics is doubtful.
Moreover,the average recuperation time of patients in the first group is 40% quicker than typically expected cannot guarantee the effectiveness of antibiotics, because 40 percent less recuperation time seems too vague to present how the first group result overwhelm the second one. The conclusion will not be convincing only making a clear comparison between the first group and the second group.

whiteoutUID: 2699068

1、两组并不一定所有病人都有二次感染

2、some≠all 由一些病人推到所有病人显然不合理

3、severe muscle strain≠muscle strain 严重肌肉损伤的人才极可能发生二次感染





The arguer draws a conclusion that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify the conclusion, the arguer points out an assumption that the secondary infections may prevent from recovering quickly after muscle strain. In addition, he cites the results of a study of two groups that patients taking antibiotics were recovered on average 40 percent faster than the ones who were taking sugar pills. However, the argument suffers from several problems, which render it unconvincing as it stands.



First of all, by relying on the study of two groups to support this argument, the arguer provides no evidence that the results are representative. We are not informed all of the samples have caught secondary infections. There is a great possibility that the first group has a smaller proportion of patients who caught secondary infections than the second group, which would result in the different recuperation time. In other words, without eliminating other possibilities, the arguer cannot convince me firmly.



Second, the assumption that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, pay attention to the word “some”, which means this occurs only on part of patients instead of the whole patients. If so, then the fact that antibiotics could help patients with muscle strain recover fast would amount to scant evidence at best that all patients who suffer from muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics.



Third, the arguer confuses the extent of severe muscle strain with general muscle strain. Common sense informs us that patients with severe muscle strain cannot accept the same treatment as patients with general muscle strain. There are much more possibilities for patients with severe muscle strain to catch secondary infections than ones who are diagnosed with general muscle strain. Obviously, the arguer unfairly regards patients as the same ones. Lacking more specific information about this, it is impossible to draw any further conclusion.



In sum, the arguer’s conclusion is not well supported. Before I can accept it, the arguer must supply clearer evidence that all of the patients in the study had caught secondary infections and give me a more credible assumption. In addition, the arguer must differentiate severe muscle strain from general muscle strain.



TO annke

Merely based on suspicious evidence, the augur（呵呵arguer，annke下面全文中都搞错哦我就不一一改了） draws a conclusion that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and suggests all patients diagnosed with muscle strain had better take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, the argument above constitutes several logical flaws. (第一段概括的很简练很好，而且句式转换的很好呵呵)
First of all, the augur presumes that all patients who diagnosed with muscle strain would necessarily get secondary infections.{ Unfortunately, there is （a） high possibility for muscle strain patients would not infections, } 整个这句话貌似结构不对，would not infections改成to not get infected如何？或者在patients后面用从句 considering the injury only occur（s） under skin. Therefore, the augur falsely assumes that muscle strain undoubtedly relates with （搭配to?） secondary infections.
Even though muscle strain patients greatly prone to get infected, as the augur assumes, there is no definite requirement that all patients should take antibiotics. According to the experiment provided, we just cannot conclude that it is because of antibiotics that the first group （of patients?或者把后面的recover改成单数形式） recover faster than the second group. As the two groups of patients are treated by different doctors--Dr. Newland, who specializes in sports medicine, seems clearly more professional than Dr. Alton, who is a general physician, it is plausible to owe the faster recovery to antibiotics. For example, Dr.Newland could suggest the first groups to take some assistant exercise to strengthen the sick muscle, while Dr.Alton ignored. （例子举得很好，呵呵我最不会举例子了） Without ruling out such possibilities, the advice of augur about taking antibiotics is doubtful.
Moreover,the average recuperation time of patients in the first group is 40% quicker than typically expected cannot guarantee the effectiveness of antibiotics, because 40 percent less recuperation time seems too vague to present how the first group result overwhelm（s） the second one. The conclusion will not be convincing only （by） making a clear comparison between the first group and the second group.

整体结构很清晰，而且第三点是我没有想到的哦，呵呵受益了。读annke的最大感觉就是条例很清晰，我自己写作文时经常前言不搭后语，比较乱了。另外就是一些细节需要小小改动。关于两组医生不同那点，我本来还在想是不是仅是很小的一点，属于论证两组不具参照性的一部分，不过作者举了个例子进一步说明了一下，挺好的呵呵。

xiaohaixxxUID: 2317561

51The following appeared in a medical newsletter.
"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."

This paragraph firstly cites an opinion that the secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Then the author provides to result of an experiment to prove the conclusion mentioned above, finally the author suggest all patients would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment; however, there are several illogic points that make the paragraph confusing.
First of all, the first group is treated by Dr. Newland; an expert specializes in sports medicine, while the other group is treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician. Obviously these two men’s skill is not at a same level. So even the second group took antibiotics, the recuperation time of the second group may also much longer than the first one, for, as we all know, the difference of the two groups was not only if who take the antibiotics.
Moreover, the “typically expected “is an ambiguous concept. The author asserted that the recuperation time of fist group was 40 percent quicker than typically expected, while the time of second group was not significantly reduced, but he did define the “typically expected time” refer to whom. Through the time of second group was not significantly reduced, the time finally reduced. So if the “typically expected time” is average time for these who didn’t take antibiotics. The second group, which didn’t take antibiotics, spent less time than typically expected time may suggest that the key factor to determine the recovery time may not whether take antibiotics but by other factors.
What’s more, the author didn’t illustrate the relationship between the secondary infections and take antibiotics. We don’t know, in the experiment, if these patients in group two are secondarily infected. If they didn’t infect secondly, the experiment is fail to support the conclusion that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain and the advice that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is also unreasonable.
In conclusion, the author fails to illustrate his opinion successfully and undoubtedly.

1)试验执行者不同 不可比
2 typtical expect 定义不明
3）吃抗生素和感染没有必然联系


to
soonyu:


In this memo(为啥是memo), the author concludes that antibiotics are benefit（beneficial）to the treatment of muscle strain. To support this conclusion, the author asserts that secondary infections could keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Moreover, he cites a study of two groups of patients. The recuperation time of the group whose members are taken antibiotics throughout their treatment is 40 percent quicker than the other one’s. However, the assertion relays on a series of unjustifiable assumption and the conclusion is not substantiated.
服抗生素恢复快不能说明被二次感染
First and the most important（most important 么?）, the author would like to(已经那么说了，不是可能) claim that secondary infections causes trouble to the treatment of muscle strain, but it lacks of substantiation. There is no evidence of that patients who took part in the study were infected secondary（感觉这怪怪的）. Though some of them who took antibiotics recovered quickly, it might because that their injuries are not serious. On the other hand（没有on the one hand, 不能有on the other hand）, antibiotics are benefit（beneficial） to the treatment of all kinds of infection not only to the secondary infection(论证点的问题
是不是二次感染和二次感染可以延长康复期没有关系
要反驳的是二次感染可以延长康复期，而不是到底有没有二次感染). That is to say, even if the quicker treatment of muscle strain attributed to antibiotics, it couldn’t prove that they were infected secondary. In summary, we cannot accept the conclusion that secondary infection often occurs in muscle strain.
研究对象不明确，结果不能说明问题
The result of the study which the author cites is （also） not acceptable. It is obviously that （obviously ，）the doctor of the patients who recovered quicker was more professional than the other one. Because of that, even patients believed that they took antibiotics, members of the first group were more likely to be confident in their treatment and it might result in the quicker healing. Moreover, 40 percent is not an accurate data when we don’t know the total number of patients who tool （took）part in the study（个人觉得论证不充分，为什么40%不准确？应该论证样本总体的个数和试验结果的可信性有很多联系么？论证不要太程式化，我觉得这道题样本总数不是关键的）.（前后没有关系，前面谈样本总数，后面谈样本构成！） It might owed to the different degrees of injures or only be an accident. Without the evidence of that the patients were in similar environment and the number of members is large enough, we cannot accept the result of the study.
In summary, the conclusion is unjustifiable. The author needs to bring us more information of the relationship between secondary infection and muscle strain. We cannot accept the assertion until the study be more scientific.Now we can't find any reason to take antibiotics as part of treatment of muscle strain.



建议论证不要太程式化   具体问题具体分析~~~~

lvruochenUID: 2792806

Fufan的作文
发错地方，我给转过来了

51The following appeared in a medical newsletter.
"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."




In this argument ,the arguer draws the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer provides us with a preliminary results of a study that a group of patients who took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment recuperated quickly than another group of patients who took sugar pills instead of antibiotics. Nevertheless, this argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws after scrutinising the experiment.

To begin with ,the arguer fails to tell us the detailed information about the patients chose in the study. What if the patients chose in the first group are health people , while the patients in another group were suffering from other disease; what if the first group consist of young people who are bound to recover much quickly since they are relatively strong and robust, on the contrary ,the other group is made up of elder people who are physically weak and therefore tend to have a long recovery. When it comes to recuperation for a people , there are several factors which we need to take into account , such as age ,gender, health condition,ethnic,etc.

Another point worth considering is that the treatment conducted by two different kinds of doctors can not lend strong support to what the arguer claimed. The treatment is of great significance in one’s recovery, while the arguer fails to provide any details of the treatment. The specialty of these two doctors may have something to do with the recovery. It is very likely that Dr. Newland ,who specializes in sports medicine, having a better knowledge of muscle injuries than the general physician ,can offer a suitable treatment for the patients which is the key factor that helped to decrease the recuperation time .

Last but no least, the patients in the second group did not take the antibiotics ,but they did take the sugar pill .The arguer fail to tell us whether the sugar pills have effects on the patients. What if the sugar pills have negative influence on the recovery? As a result, the study can not demonstrate that the antibiotics can help to reduce the recuperation time.

In summary , the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more details concering the patients and therapeutic methods of the two groups as well as the function of the sugar pills. Moreover, the arguer have to present more evidence to demonstrate that antibiotics is suitable and safe for every muscle strain patient before we can better evaluate the argument.

lvruochenUID: 2792806

用时2H20M，字数438
一般推所有错误，患者情况未知，年龄未知，个体差异
即使不顾及上面，也不可以，医生不同，时间不具体
应用的话，滥用抗生素可能产生副作用，可能使真正需要抗生素的疾病不好。

The argument describes an experiment indicating the relationship between use of antibiotics and average time taken to recover after muscle strain. Dependable as the experiment seems, it is not logical to some extent.

After taking some observation on the average recovering time of a certain group of patients, the experiment drew the conclusion, without considering many significant elements, that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of the treatment.

In a word, the conclusion can't be mentioned as a rational one based on the facts. Why should we put the deduction, made from the ‘average’ of some patients, to all patients? Doctor should care more about the differences between individuals, for medicine should pain more attention to each patient, rather than the ‘average’ of patients. Using that as a basis, it shows extremely indifference to patients that the experiment coming into the result rather hasty. More tellingly, what about the age of the patient? Are the elder people more likely to have muscle strain than the younger? Should they take antibiotics as treatment as well? What's more, do man and woman have the same need for antibiotics? Then what about how serious the strain is? Do secondary infections happen only in time of severe muscle strain? How about different kinds of muscle strain? All above remains to be done in further experiment.

If we put aside all preceding problems, the experiment itself is somehow vague. First, we can't ignore the fact that the two groups of patients were treated by different doctors. It is difficult to say that the way in which the two doctors treated their patients was exactly the same except for the using of antibiotics. The expert in sports medicine may have more experience in treating such muscle strain. In addition, some patients may feel better when they know they are given treatment by an expert, which will definitely do better to their recovery. Then, the inference is not believable until more detailed information is given. It is that the number of the patients taking part in the experiment and the amount of antibiotics used and the time they took to recover that stays unknown to us.

At last, if we surely accept the using of antibiotics as necessity, there is still something we should take into consideration. Side-effects are making that method not that worthy in some cases. And the abuse of antibiotics makes it harder to treat some worse diseases that antibiotics are the key to cure them. We should think twice before we take the theory into practice.

To soonyu
我觉得我第二段是想说得出那样的结论太草率
第三段那个短语确实是错了
第2.3段一个是逻辑错误，一个是试验不精确，我觉得是分开的
最后一句怎么改的坚决一点呢？我以为可以了

annkeUID: 2605122

3# whiteout
The arguer draws a conclusion that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as [a] part of their treatment. To justify the conclusion, the arguer points out an assumption that the secondary infections may prevent from recovering quickly after muscle strain. In addition, he cites the results of a study of two groups that patients taking antibiotics were recovered[不需要被动] on average 40 percent faster than the ones who were taking sugar pills. However, the argument suffers from several problems, which render it unconvincing as it stands.[首段主要是在概述文章，分清假设和结论为后文卖伏笔]
First of all, by relying on[这个用法别扭，直接relied on] the study of two groups to support[supporting更好] this argument, the arguer provides no evidence that the results are representative. We are not informed all of the samples have caught secondary infections. There is a great possibility that the first group has a smaller proportion of patients who caught secondary infections than the second group, which would result in the different recuperation time. In other words, without eliminating other possibilities, the arguer cannot convince me firmly.[这一段论证目标是样本调查类问题：1样本少且不具有代表性，2样本模糊，还有其它情况。但是，两个论证都没有展开深入下去。如1只提到样本并非全都感染了；2只反驳了1组有可能更少感染。其余都是概述，not incisive enough.] Second[ly], the assumption that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain[这只是一个成分，the assumption的谓语呢？], pay attention[pay attention暗含的主语应该是we/let us] to the word “some”, which means this occurs only on[in] [a] part of patients instead of the whole[all] patients. If so, then the fact that antibiotics could help patients with muscle strain recover fast would amount to scant evidence at best that all patients who suffer from muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics.[最后一句没有读懂。这段是想论证some 不代表all，white童鞋只是把什么是some什么是all摆出来就得出结论。同样缺少论证过程。可以说，这些病人感染了，但是不是所有病人都会感染，对于没有感染的病人，采用抗生素的话不仅不能治病，而且很有可能威胁他们的生命。等。]
Third, the arguer confuses [the extent of severe muscle strain] with general muscle strain[这种表达不推荐，也是概述]. Common sense informs us that patients with severe muscle strain cannot accept the same treatment as patients with general muscle strain.[and then?重点是文中内容] There are much[many] more possibilities[There is much more possibility] for patients with severe muscle strain to catch secondary infections[catch infection?/how about “infect again”] than ones who are diagnosed with general muscle strain. Obviously, the arguer unfairly regards patients as the same [ones去掉][ignore the variation /difference among patients更好]. Lacking more specific information about this, it is impossible to draw any further conclusion.
In sum, the arguer’s conclusion is not well supported. Before I can accept it, the arguer must supply clearer evidence that all of the patients in the study had caught secondary infections and give me a more credible assumption. In addition, the arguer must differentiate severe muscle strain from general muscle strain.[结构清楚，语言很well-controlled，但是无效信息太多了，如果把万金油句子去掉之后，文章没剩几句的。]

fufan6711UID: 2788330

Toxiaohaixxx

This paragraph firstly cites an opinion that the secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Then the author provides to（改成a） result of an experiment to prove the conclusion mentioned above（第一句并不是作者的结论）, finally the author suggest（加s） all patients would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment; however（首字母应该大写把）, there are several illogic points that make the paragraph （我个人建议用argument好些）confusing.
First of all, the first group is treated by Dr. Newland; （把分号改成，或者去掉加个who is变成定语从句要好些）an expert specializes in sports medicine, while the other group is treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician. Obviously these two men’s skill is not at a same level（我觉得下面就应该举几个体现水平不同的例子）. So even the second group took antibiotics, the recuperation time of the second group may also much longer than the first one, for, as we all know, the difference of the two groups was not only if who take the antibiotics（我看不懂是什么意思）.
Moreover, the “typically expected “is an ambiguous concept. The author asserted that the recuperation time of fist group was 40 percent quicker than typically expected, while the time of second group was not significantly reduced, but he did define the “typically expected time” refer to whom. Through（拼写错误，应为Though）the time of second group was not significantly reduced,（建议加一个yet）the time finally reduced. So if the “typically expected time” is average time for these who didn’t take antibiotics. The second group, which didn’t take antibiotics, spent less time than typically expected time may suggest that the key factor to determine the recovery time may not whether take antibiotics but by other factors. （感觉表达有问题）
What’s more, the author didn’t illustrate the relationship between the secondary infections and take antibiotics（between 应该链接连个词性相同的词，前面为名词后面为动词）. We don’t know, in the experiment, if these patients in group two are secondarily infected. If they didn’t infect secondly, the experiment is（这句有两个动词，去掉is 同时在fail后加s ） fail to support the conclusion that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain and the advice that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is also unreasonable.
In conclusion, the author fails to illustrate his opinion successfully and undoubtedly.（应该给出建议，怎么样做才能使结论更CONVINCIN）

怎么调色啦 ~~~

lvruochenUID: 2792806

To FuFan

In this argument ,the arguer draws the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would（换成别的好一些） be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer provides us with a preliminary results of a study that a group of patients who took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment recuperated quickly比较级 than another group of patients who took sugar pills instead of antibiotics. Nevertheless, this argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws after scrutinising这个词好高级 the experiment.这段写得不错，学习了，但是据说写得很长不利于erater评分，追星箭里的链接说的

To begin with ,the arguer fails to tell us the detailed information about the patients chose错 in the study. What if the patients chose错 in the first group are health people （不是病人吗？想说体质好吧，health patient）, while the patients in another group were suffering from other disease我猜用复数; what if the first group consist of young people who are bound 这个用法有吗？告诉我一声了to recover much quickly比较级 since they are relatively 比较级strong and robust, on the contrary （用while？）,the other group is made up of elder people who are physically weak and therefore tend to have a好像前面是很多人 long比较级 recovery. When it comes to recuperation for a people , there are several factors which we need to take into account , such as age ,gender, health condition,ethnic,etc.（注意这段的时态，好像有错的）我觉得年龄这点说多了，是不是展开一下后几点，而且有点编例子的感觉（个人意见，你认为呢）

Another point worth considering is that the treatment conducted by two different kinds of doctors （逗号分开吧）can not lend strong support to what the arguer claimed. The treatment is of great significance in one’s recovery, while the arguer fails to provide any details of the treatment. 什么意思，根据下文treatment应该有定语吧The specialty of these two doctors may have something to do with the recovery. It is very likely that Dr. Newland ,who specializes in sports medicine, 下面这句写乱了搁在上面的分句里好了having a better knowledge of muscle injuries than the general physician ,can offer a suitable treatment for the patients which is the key factor that helped to decrease the recuperation time .

Last but no least, the patients in the second group did not take the antibiotics ,but they did take the sugar pill .The arguer fail错 to tell us whether the sugar pills have effects on the patients. What if the sugar pills have negative influence on the recovery? As a result, the study can not demonstrate that the antibiotics can help to reduce the recuperation time.也挺重要的，忘了写进我那里了

In summary , the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more details concering the patients and therapeutic methods of the two groups as well as the function of the sugar pills. Moreover, the arguer have to present more evidence to demonstrate that antibiotics is suitable and safe for every muscle strain patient 下面一句不知道有没有这个用法，告诉我一声，谢谢了before we can better evaluate the argument.总结全文，不过话说好像也不怎么注意结尾

lvruochenUID: 2792806

To annke 我觉得40%可以说明结论对了，只是说不清楚吧

lvruochenUID: 2792806

To whiteout 二三点重了吧

lvruochenUID: 2792806

这个帖子也可以讨论的。。。
这次作文改乱了
没改别人作文的同学请找没有被人改过的作文改一下，谢谢了
下次注意楼下改楼上的作文