【1010G精英组】ARGUMENT51 F组回收站

lynnuanaUID: 2772328

Attention！！！
F组素材积累库已完成，欢迎大家添砖加瓦！！！地址点这

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 4月22日，13点之前上交ARGUMENT51，作文直接跟帖，修改直接跟帖，不用另开新帖~
* 要求每篇argument附上逻辑链
* 欢迎在本贴内讨论+BS本期题目~

【Issue130情况汇报】F总贴地址
目前有4位同学交了作业，2位同学被修改，请没完成的同学加油补上，防止越积越多~ 完成了请在本贴跟帖说明一下

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."

附：改作文指南 by 最後の使徒
        有关一类涉及药物和健康问题的argument题目的思路探讨 by liyi2321
        Argument51的结论是抗生素有助肌肉损伤的康复还是二次感染阻碍了肌肉损伤的恢复

lxin333UID: 2650844

霸占第一楼！
一休已发 昨晚改晕了 搞定51后 我会再去改A53和I130。。。向大家学习
周末前完成BS记录 因为要准备期中考- - 拉下太多 尽力将未完成作业补上~
以后保证减少拖欠= =

另外推荐搜索 星夜无夏 的帖子 学习AW！

“AW也是一样。如果你不是真的去真心与那些题目接触，不是一次又一次去体会字里行间暗含的意义和作者想说却没有说出来的信息；如果你不是在查找资料和信息的时候，对那些陌生领域的知识报以真正的尊敬，如果不是真的秉承着对知识的渴求。它也会毫无慷慨的让你才思枯竭。让你永远倒在逻辑的脚下自卑得永远站不起来。让你一辈子将自己打上没思想没逻辑没原创性的标签，最可悲的是，你还欣慰与此。真理是如此公平的对待着每一个人，它近在眼前又远在天边。可是当你真正体会到真理的存在，哪怕你抓不住它，它也很难从你身边走开。你的世界会从此变得如此的逻辑清楚，哪怕知识面还不够思想不够深刻，可是事情的条理因果就是如此有系统的可以联系在一起。从这里开始认识世界，成为一个智者只会是时间的问题。当我知道要用什么样的方式去思考AW的题目时，我并没有觉得轻松的快感，反而是更加深邃和艰涩的思考。我说过了，我并不是聪明的小孩。问题复杂到一定程度时，脑子就会想得很痛。每次我都想，如果有一个人比我聪明，又能明白我的理解方式，一定可以得到比我多得多的真知灼见。”

关于阿狗51
这个帖子有拿来做例子 可以参考
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=416323&extra=page%3D1

isiruiUID: 2772448

占楼!!

carol.ljUID: 2764249

逻辑链：
1在服用抗生素的同时，病人每天都要吃饭，会摄取一些营养物质，比如说肉，蛋，鱼等，它们富含蛋白质，对于治疗肌肉损伤有促进作用。并且他们还会吃一些其他的药物，那么，就无法判断到底是谁使得平均康复期变短。
2 即使他们每天没有吸收能够对康复起促进作用的东西，这个结论也存在问题，样本的实验不严密。主要有以下几点：
（1）治疗的医生不同；
（2）一组用的是抗生素，一组用的是糖丸，但还缺少一个空白组作为对照组。不然就没有比较的前提了。
（3）如果两组的对象来自不同的年龄层的人，那么不同的年龄的人的康复情况是不一样的。老年人就会慢些，青年人康复得快些，这是一个常识。
3．抓住结论中的一个关键字：all.如果病人中有人还有其他的疾病，服用抗生素会产生负面效果，那么这个建议就是武断的，没意义。


         The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By drawing a comparison between the two groups of patients, the one group, which are given antibiotics by the doctor who specializes in sports, recuperate 4o percent quicker than typically
expected. While the other group given sugar pills take no apparent difference about their recuperation time .the author concluded that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment seems logical.
         However, the author is failing to consider other possible alternatives to the recuperation time ‘s reduce. In their recuperation time, the patients have to intake of food .More generally, some food contains lots of nutrition, for example, meat, fish, eggs and so on. In part perhaps, the patients intake of much food which is rich in protein .There is equally no doubt that muscles lean more heavily on protein to be recuperated. If so, it is possible , in a certain extent, the protein food is responsible for the average recuperation’s time’s reduce. They too take some other medicine which undoubtedly impact their treatment. Similary, the patients who are given sugar pills maybe absorb the food which can take a hold of the muscle recovery, get better in the normal healing rate. Hence, there is no inevitable connection between antibiotics and the reduce of recuperation time. indeed, matter a litter.
        Even if they don’t absorb some food or other medicine which has good effect on muscle treatment. Still, there are some mistakes in the sampling experiments, in statistics. firstly, two groups’ doctors are different. one doctor called Dr.Newland, specializes in sports medicine. The other called Dr.Alton, a general physician. Different doctors have different ideas, and may take different treatment. so it will take different result. secondly, one group is given antibiotics while the other group is given sugar pills. There is no comparable basic on the ground that a blank group to contrast is not here. Moreover, if the people, in the two groups, come form different age , their rehabilitation process is naturally different. The old recovering slowly, but the young recuperate fast. This distinction is piled on the top of the reaction to illness by body itself between old and young. Thus, the precondition of the two group is different, the consequence is necessarily different. The result of the study is incomplete to be conclusive.
          Last but not least, the study, as the author highlights, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics. All patients diagnosed with muscle strain?? If the patients have other disease which will be more serious by take antibiotics, is this advise valuable ? The answer is absolutely no. so the claim is not so scientific and rigorous.
          Overall, the reason of taking antibiotics throughout muscle treatment seems logical, however, before any final decisions are made , the author should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes .

lxin333UID: 2650844

1 事实secondary infections可能阻碍severe muscle strain的康复
2 study on some patients-->用抗生素的比用糖丸的恢复更快
1+2-->all patients with muscle strain 应该将抗生素作为治疗方案中的一部分
反驳
1 可能阻碍 不能推广到 muscle strain 就要使用抗生素
2 severe muscle strain 不能和 普通 比较 也许严重的才可能二次感染
3 some --> all study不够详细 容量 两医生背景啥的。。。略写
4 病人心理作用 如第二组 也许认为自己被注射抗生素而认为自己状况严重 心态不乐观
5 为考虑抗生素是否有副作用


Grounding on the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain and the study which is aimed at confirming the hypothesis, and then synthesizing these two incidents, the author accordingly concludes that all the patients with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, this argument suffers from a series of poor assumptions, which render it wholly unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the author's conclusion that all the patients with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics is based on an unsubstantial assumption that the secondary infection is bound to obstruct the muscle strain rehabilitation. There is no convincing evidence to demonstrate the slow recovery of muscle strain is only or most likely caused by secondary infections. It is entirely possible that other factors such as the unhealthy life style of the patients, the delayed treatment, drug abuse and so on, as common sense told us, keep the muscle strain from healing quickly after muscle strain. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author's conclusion seems untenable.

Moreover, the doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, this is probably to say, only when the patients who are diagnosed with severe muscle strain will they have a higher probability of secondary infected than the ones with normal muscle strain. Before excluding this possibility, the author's hasty conclusion shows nothing but illogicality.

Even assume all the muscle strain patients have same chance to be secondary infected, the final conclusion is also relies on a dubious result from an inexact study. The author fails to consider that the therapeutic schedules differ from doctors whose backgrounds are different. We are not told whether the two doctors have their own special method about healing the muscle strain. In addition, is the sample enough to confirm the hypothesis? Are there any other factors, for instance diet, life styles, attitudes toward the process of recuperation, lead to the inexact results?

Last but not least, assuming the antibiotics works well on the muscle strain, without more tests, we didn't know whether the antibiotics would cause allergy or other unpredictable effects. And once it is taken as part of the treatment, it may become toxic when mixed with other substance.

To summarize, the author's recommendation is ill conceived and poorly supported. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide more detailed information about the relationship between muscle strain and secondary infection. To better evaluate the argument, the author should ensure the sample is able to represent all the patients with muscle strain.

悦微微志燮UID: 2759026

提纲：1、a不能保证二次感染一定会发生b糖丸也会产生副作用
      2、病人的身体素质等不同会对试验产生不同影响
      3、医生的治疗手段不同也会影响结果

In this argument, the author states that to have a better cure, patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this conclusion, the author illustrate with two comparative trials. The first group of patients was treated by a doctor who has a specialty in sports medicine and took antibiotics throughout the treatment. At the same time, patients in the second group were treated by a general physician without antibiotics but the sugar pills. In the end, the first group’s patients recuperate 40% quicker than the second group’s. But after the examination of this supporting evidence, I found the argument specious in several points.

To begin with, even the doctors are not sure about whether the secondary infections have influences on the healing of the patients; how the author could estimate that the infection will absolutely happen and it’s the antibiotics which keep the infections away help to the treatment of muscle strain. What’s more, the author didn’t give the demonstration of the functions of sugar pills, maybe the infection didn’t occur but it’s because of the sugar pills have some side-effects that leading to the slower recuperation.

Moreover, the validity of the survey is doubtful. The author didn’t offer us the information about the patients in the test. If the first group is consist of the young, and the second group is full of elders, the age may also be a factor that effect the time of recuperation. Apart from this, the differences of gender, health condition and other characteristic which will possibly impact the result should be taken into account as well.

Finally, the author ignored the factor which comes from the different treating method of the two doctors. The first doctor, Dr. Newland was a specialist in sports medicine. He has more experiences about the muscle strain treatments than the second doctor, who is a general physician. Dr. Newland always deals with the patients hurt in the sports activities and he knows more on how to treat them. In addition, it’s possible that it’s by other medicine or treating methods Dr. Newland used to the patients but not the antibiotics that bringing a better effect to the treatment.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To consummate it the author should offer us a statistic on the probability of getting infected after the muscle strain. The research which could demonstrate that patients in the same physical condition, same symptom and treated by the same treatment program, the using of antibiotics could lead a quicker recuperation is also needed to make the argument persuasive.

lynnuanaUID: 2772328

logic chain：
A study → secondary infections →keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain →all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.
（写完了一对照逻辑链发现二次感染没有提，是一个很大的欠缺！）



The study the speaker cites in the argument seems persuasively and powerfully support his assertion, however, a careful scrutiny would finally disclose how unscientific the comparative study between the two groups is and how arbitrary the conclusion—all patient should be suggested to take antibiotics as a part of their muscle strain recovery treatment---is.

To begin with, except the variables, other factors and conditions in a scientific experiment must be designed and controlled in the same way, or the data obtained would be highly suspected. Unfortunately, four unknown or changeable aspects, at least, in the comparison experiment above would undermine the preciseness and accuracy of the study, which, thus, could hardly substantiate the hypothesis pointed in the first sentence, let alone lead to the conclusion of the argument.

The first factor is the experiment controller, the primary mistake. If Dr. Newland, specializes in sports medicine, could be an expert probably with a regimented research training and owning a clear understanding towards the sports hurt, the controller of the other group, the general physician, at the risk of sounding cold，is just an amateur for his background. From my perspective, the experiment should use only one specialist to control the whole process in order to make sure the accuracy and consistency. Besides, even if it must use two controllers, another controller should leastwise be a professional surgeon.  

The second factor is about the sugar pills the group two took in the study. In order to exclude other factors potentially affect the result of an experiment and only focus on the drug effect of antibiotics, the control group should take nothing during the experimental process. Why the group 2 should take the sugar pills? Would the sugar pills contain antibiotics ingredient or other ingredients? Or have the participants eaten the sugar pills regularly? Unfortunately, the speaker does not offer more information to resolve these questions.

The third question is about the number of the participants in the experiment. Many figures terms such as 40 percentage or average, are indicated in the speaker’s expression only missing out the significant number of the two groups. Neither could the reader recognize if the samples are representative or not, nor could them know whether the participants in the two groups are same.

The forth is about the interpretation of the experiment result which is extremely fuzzy. For the group one, no data is provided to explain what is “typically expected” or how it could be assumed. For the second, what is the ratio of “the significantly reduced” people? And for the both, which degree does the recovery of individuals run up to? It is very possible that the subjects in group one do not recover completely while the people in the comparative group recover reach up to 100%.

Moreover, apart from the four huge flaws in the experiment mentioned above, at the even worse, the speaker seems too hasty to publish the experiment result in the newsletter to the public merely based on a preliminary—the first step—study.

Providing the study is OK, this is not to say that that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would be recommended to take antibiotics in their treatment. First of all, one specialist should hold a prudent attitude towards the application of a new medicine. As a general rule, first he has to start a clinical trial to the new drug and then report the result to the public. Second, if the result of the clinical trial is detected the medicine is safe to be taken, should the all patients be suggested to use this new medicine? I would say no: in part because that certain particular group such as pregnancy, young kids or old people, need to be treated greatly cautious when encouraging them to take this medicine; in part because no evidence reveals whether the antibiotics have side effects, for instance, allergy, inflammation, tract injury or drug resistance and so forth; and in part, it appears, because whether the drug could be permitted by the government is uncertain--maybe the production of antibiotics would result in serious pollution or perhaps the medicine would contain prohibited ingredients. So the conclusion that all people should be well advised to take antibiotics to cure their muscle stain is still hanging to be proved whether it is feasible.

To be sure, the speaker’s conclusion is unconvincing and presumptuous. To persuade the public well, he should provide a detailed experiment report and meanwhile, avoid the same errors existing in the following-up study. Moreover, he should still hold a cautious attitude towards the application of the antibiotics medicine.

xmaszztUID: 2796708

原文：
1.
secondary infections 导致muscle strain的恢复
2.
study on 2 groups说明，用抗生素的恢复速度快
1+2得到结论：all patients would take antibiotics as part of their treatment.
驳论点：
1两对实验组所受的条件不一样
2导致康复的不一定是抗生素
3个别的肌肉损伤用以抗生素不能证明所有人的肌肉损伤都必须用抗生素辅助治疗


In this argument , author suggest that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as muscle part of their treatment because of the secondary infections in muscle. It is some how reasonable at first glance but the author still fails to constructs his standpoint by willy-nilly evidence.

First and foremost, by relying on the study of two groups to support this argument, the arguer provides no evidence that the results are representative.
The first group is treated by Dr. Newland who is an expert specializes in sports medicine, while the other group is treated by Dr. Alton-a general physician. We have every reason to believe Dr. Newland would give his patients some other treatments to recover their muscle strain by his experience. In addition, how about all relevant patients’ situations, including their ages, body health, and the extension of injury and so on, these all affect the muscle’s recovery. What’s more, we do not know the number of each group, if each of the two groups only has two patients, the consequence of the experiment proves nothing more than a covered truth. Before such doubts are analyzed, the speaker can not cite the experiment as evidence.

Even assuming that the result of the experiment is supported, the author unfairly indicates a causal relation between the antibiotics and the recovery of muscle strain. In this case there could be other factors, maybe the sugar pills would hinder the recovery of muscle strain, and here 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. Due to the lack of adequate control group, the author cannot reasonably conclude that the antibiotics are responsible for recovery of muscle strain.

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. Yet we do not know the antibiotics will bring about some other harmful effects while healing the muscle strain for some patients, and maybe the antibiotics do not affect on every muscle. If we use the antibiotics to every patient arbitrary, it would be venturesome.

Over all, the author’s conclusion about all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the author must do some further accurate experiments and studies.

lynnuanaUID: 2772328

8# xmaszzt
我又改你的，呵呵

红色：小词或补充  蓝色：句子  括号：点评 加粗：主题句子 下划线：标记 粉色：学习

In this argument , author suggest that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as muscle part of their treatment because of the secondary infections in muscle. It is some how reasonable at first glance but the author still fails to constructs his standpoint by willy-nilly evidence.

First and foremost, by relying on the study of two groups to support this argument, the arguer provides no evidence that the results are representative.The first group is treated by Dr. Newland who is an expert specializes in sports medicine, while the other group is treated by Dr. Alton-a general physician. We have every reason to believe Dr. Newland would give his patients some other treatments to recover their muscle strain by his experience.（how about Dr Alton？为什么上句提到这句却没提？） In addition, how about all relevant patients’ situations, including their ages, body health, and the extension of injury and so on, these all affect the muscle’s recovery.（句式混杂-- other relevant patients’ situations including their ages, body health, and the extension of injury and so on, would all affect the muscle‘s recovery ）
What’s more, we do not know the number of each group, （.）if each of the two groups only has two patients, the consequence of the experiment proves nothing more than a covered truth. Before such doubts are analyzed, the speaker can not cite the experiment as evidence.（为什么文末一句没有提到首句中的representative？觉得首尾两句应该呼应一下~）

Even assuming that the result of the experiment is well supported, the author unfairly indicates a causal relation between the antibiotics and the recovery of muscle strain. In this case there could be other factors, maybe（我觉得这样的插入语应该用for example 承接factors） the sugar pills would hinder the recovery of muscle strain, and here is a circumstance that they could suffer other diseases, which can exert an negative influence on their muscles’ healing, at the same time when（as） the experiment is processing. Due to the lack of adequate control group, the author cannot reasonably conclude that the antibiotics are responsible for recovery of muscle strain.

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. Yet we do not know whether？the antibiotics will bring about some other harmful effects while healing the muscle strain for some patients, and maybe the antibiotics do not affect on every muscle. If we use the antibiotics to every patient arbitrary, it would be venturesome.

Over all, the author’s conclusion about all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the author must do some further accurate experiments and studies.

正规的Argument作品~~ 句式、用词非常argument~ 学习~

lxin333UID: 2650844

FT! 改重了~晚上继续改
by willy xmaszzt

In this argument , (the) author suggest that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as muscle(小错误) part of their treatment because of the secondary infections in muscle. It is some how reasonable at first glance but the author still fails to constructs his standpoint by willy-nilly(哈哈 你们单独查下willy的意思) evidence.

First and foremost, by relying on the study of two groups to support this argument, the arguer provides no evidence that the results are representative. The first group is treated by Dr. Newland who is an expert specializes in sports medicine, while the other group is treated by Dr. Alton-a general physician. We have every reason to believe Dr. Newland would give his patients some other treatments to recover their muscle strain by his experience.(这大段的显得罗嗦) In addition, how about all relevant patients’ situations, including their ages, body health, and the extension of injury and so on这样简洁却有力说明 不错, these all affect the muscle’s recovery. 但是整句怪里怪气= =What’s more, we do not know the number of each group,
if each of the two groups only has two patients, the consequence of the experiment proves nothing more than a covered truth. Before such doubts are analyzed（eliminated或许好些）这个搭配感觉不合理, the speaker can not cite the experiment as evidence.
Even assuming that the result of the experiment is （well）
supported, the author unfairly indicates a causal relation between the antibiotics and the recovery of muscle strain. In this case there could be other factors, maybe（it is entirely possible that） the sugar pills would hinder the recovery of muscle strain, and here is a circumstance that they could suffer from？ other diseases, which can exert an negative influence on their muscles’ healing, at the same time when the experiment is processing.
Due to the lack of adequate control group, the author cannot reasonably conclude that the antibiotics are responsible for recovery of muscle strain. （这段我觉得不错，不过和上段一样都是攻击实验的，不如写一块，这段内容为重点）

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. Yet we do not know the antibiotics will bring about some other harmful effects while healing the muscle strain for some patients, and maybe the antibiotics do not affect on every muscle.有见地，学习 If we use the antibiotics to every patient arbitrary, it would be venturesome.（such as。。。。。。。。。。）

Over all, the author’s conclusion about all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the author must do some further accurate experiments and studies.

Commentary：
总的不错，用词还是挺argument的，主要攻击了实验合理性，抗生素和肌肉拉伤的联系，抗生素副作用这几个方面。第三段一提出了对两者关系的质疑，其实这个逻辑错误还是值得攻击的，不必仅仅局限在实验不准确性，可以详写，举出各种例子~

lxin333UID: 2650844

改悦微微

In this argument, the author states that to have a better cure, patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this conclusion, the author illustrate with two comparative trials. The first group of patients was treated by a doctor who has a specialty in sports medicine and took antibiotics throughout the treatment. At the same time, patients in the second group were treated by a general physician without antibiotics but the sugar pills. In the end, the first group’s patients recuperate 40% quicker than the second group’s. But after the examination of this supporting evidence, I found the argument specious in several points.(其实开头也不必复述一遍，可以简洁或者开门见山指出错误所在)

To begin with, even the doctors are not sure about whether the secondary infections have influences on the healing of the patients; how the author could estimate that the infection will absolutely happen and it’s the antibiotics which keep the infections away that? help to the treatment of muscle strain. What’s more, the author didn’t give the demonstration of the functions of sugar pills, maybe the infection didn’t occur but it’s because of去掉吧 the sugar pills have some side-effects that leading to the slower recuperation.

Moreover, the validity of the survey is doubtful不错. The author didn’t offer us the information about the patients in the test. If the first group is consist of the young, and the second group is full of elders, the age may also be a factor that effect the time of recuperation. Apart from this, the differences of gender, health condition and other characteristic which will possibly impact the result should be taken into account as well.

Finally, the author ignored the factor which comes from the different treating method of the two doctors. The first doctor, Dr. Newland was a specialist in sports medicine. He has more experiences about the muscle strain treatments than the second doctor, who is a general physician. Dr. Newland always deals with the patients hurt in the sports activities and he knows more on how to treat them. In addition, it’s possible that it’s by是不是多了？ other medicine or treating methods Dr. Newland used to the patients but not the antibiotics that bringing a better effect to the treatment. 加个结论~会完整些

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To consummate it， the author should offer us a statistic on the probability of getting infected after the muscle strain. The research which could demonstrate that patients in the same physical condition, same symptom and treated by the same treatment program, the using of antibiotics could lead a quicker recuperation is also needed to make the argument persuasive.

认真！除了因为我个人水平找不到的错误，基本没啥了，一定是经过修改的~
但是文章过于平淡，通篇攻击的几个地方不外乎都是样本的问题。其实还有一些别的问题，比如不知道抗生素有啥副作用前怎么可以建议病人使用呢?
还有第二段的内容不错，可以重点写！！！

lxin333UID: 2650844

改lynn

The study the speaker cites in the argument seems persuasively and powerfully support his assertion, however, a careful scrutiny would finally disclose how unscientific the comparative study between the two groups is and how arbitrary the conclusion—all patient should be suggested to take antibiotics as a part of their muscle strain recovery treatment---is.(很好的开头，指出错误)

To begin with, except the variables, other factors and conditions in a scientific experiment must be designed and controlled in the same way, or the data obtained would be highly suspected. Unfortunately, four unknown or changeable aspects, at least, in the comparison experiment above would undermine the preciseness and accuracy of the study, which, thus, could hardly substantiate the hypothesis pointed in the first sentence, let alone lead to the conclusion of the argument.

The first factor is the experiment controller, the primary mistake. If Dr. Newland, specializes in sports medicine, could be an expert probably with a regimented research training and owning a clear understanding towards the sports hurt, the controller of the other group, the general physician, at the risk of sounding cold，is just an amateur for his background. From my perspective, the experiment should use only one specialist to control the whole process in order to make sure the accuracy and consistency. Besides, even if it must use two controllers, another controller should leastwise be a professional surgeon.  

The second factor is about the sugar pills the group two took in the study. In order to exclude other factors potentially affect the result of an experiment and only focus on the drug effect of antibiotics, the control group should take nothing during the experimental process. Why the group 2 should take the sugar pills? Would the sugar pills contain antibiotics ingredient or other ingredients? Or have the participants eaten the sugar pills regularly? 问得好！Unfortunately, the speaker does not offer more information to resolve these questions.

The third question is about the number of the participants in the experiment. Many figures terms such as 40 percentage or average, are indicated in the speaker’s expression only missing out the significant number of the two groups. Neither could the reader recognize if the samples are representative or not, nor could them know whether the participants in the two groups are same. 学习！

The forth is about the interpretation of the experiment result which is extremely fuzzy. For the group one, no data is provided to explain what is “typically expected” or how it could be assumed. For the second, what is the ratio of “the significantly reduced” people? And for the both, which degree does the recovery of individuals run up to? It is very possible that the subjects in group one do not recover completely while the people in the comparative group recover reach up to 100%.哇塞！GREAT！

Moreover, apart from the four huge flaws in the experiment mentioned above, at the even worse, the speaker seems too hasty to publish the experiment result in the newsletter to the public merely based on a preliminary—the first step—study.

Providing the study is OK, this is not to say that that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would be recommended to take antibiotics in their treatment. First of all, one specialist should hold a prudent attitude towards the application of a new medicine. As a general rule, first he has to start a clinical trial to the new drug and then report the result to the public. Second, if the result of the clinical trial is detected ？？？the medicine is safe to be taken, should the all patients be suggested to use this new medicine? I would say no: in part because that certain particular group such as pregnancy, young kids or old people, need to be treated greatly cautious when encouraging them to take this medicine（心思慎密啊~学习）; in part because no evidence reveals whether the antibiotics have side effects, for instance, allergy, inflammation, tract injury or drug resistance and so forth; and in part, it appears, because whether the drug could be permitted by the government is uncertain--maybe the production of antibiotics would result in serious pollution or perhaps the medicine would contain prohibited ingredients.感觉扯远了吧= = So the conclusion that all people should be well advised to take antibiotics to cure their muscle stain is still hanging to be proved whether it is feasible.

To be sure, the speaker’s conclusion is unconvincing and presumptuous. To persuade the public well, he should provide a detailed experiment report and meanwhile, avoid the same errors existing in the following-up study高见！. Moreover, he should still hold a cautious attitude towards the application of the antibiotics medicine

恩 看组长的文章总是要受到很大很大的启发，无论是语言还是观点，好好学习~
文章对study的合理性进行有力详细的攻击，可惜没提到secondary infections。虽然整篇文章考虑严谨，罗列众多逻辑错误，但是有相当一部分可归结为study的问题。文章开头说Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain---------句中有一个may!! 也就是说即使study证明了antibiotics有效果，最多只能说明可以治疗muscle strain，但是ms的康复受二次感染影响的猜测未得到证实！！！
如果在精彩的实验合理性攻击后加上这点，也许更有意思~
拙见~~~写了那么多不发表点意见多不好意思
这里的study攻击值得模仿，哈哈~

carol.ljUID: 2764249

改lxin333

1 事实secondary infections可能阻碍severe muscle strain的康复
2 study on some patients-->用抗生素的比用糖丸的恢复更快
1+2-->all patients with muscle strain 应该将抗生素作为治疗方案中的一部分
反驳
1 可能阻碍 不能推广到 muscle strain 就要使用抗生素
2 severe muscle strain 不能和 普通 比较 也许严重的才可能二次感染
3 some --> all study不够详细 容量 两医生背景啥的。。。略写
4 病人心理作用 如第二组 也许认为自己被注射抗生素而认为自己状况严重 心态不乐观
5 为考虑抗生素是否有副作用


Grounding on（ground是触底，接地的意思，用在这里好吗？？也没深究，不清楚。。） the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain and the study which is aimed at confirming the hypothesis, and then synthesizing these two incidents, the author accordingly concludes that all the patients with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, this argument suffers from a series of poor assumptions, which render it wholly unpersuasive as it stands.（开头段，概要题中内容，开门见山）

To begin with, the author's conclusion that all the patients with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics（加个 ，which ？？）is based on an unsubstantial assumption that the secondary infection is bound to obstruct the muscle strain rehabilitation. There is no convincing evidence to demonstrate the slow recovery of muscle strain is only or most likely caused by secondary infections. It is entirely possible that other factors such as the unhealthy life style of the patients, the delayed treatment, drug abuse and so on, as common sense told us, keep the muscle strain from healing quickly after muscle strain. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author's conclusion seems untenable.（这段开头，指出了作者的结论（结论本身也是错误的），但反驳的是前提，即产生抗生素的因素不是唯一的继发性二次感染，还有其他的因素。。如果一个结论的前提条件错误了，结论也是错的吧，为什么不批呢？？
Moreover, the doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, this is probably to say, only when the patients who are diagnosed with severe muscle strain will they删 have a higher probability of secondary infected than the ones with normal muscle strain. Before excluding this possibility, the author's hasty conclusion shows nothing but illogicality.（继第二段，讲的还是二次感染的程度的影响）

Even assume all the muscle strain patients have same chance to be secondary infected, （紧接着第二段，做了个让步假设，学习了）the final conclusion is also relies on a dubious result from an inexact study. The author fails to consider that the therapeutic schedules differ from doctors whose backgrounds are different. We are not told whether the two doctors have their own special method about healing the muscle strain. In addition, is the sample enough to confirm the hypothesis? Are there any other factors, for instance diet, life styles, attitudes toward the process of recuperation, lead to the inexact results?这里可以适当说细点，instance diet 有哪些，什么样的life styles, attitudes，这样内容丰富点

Last but not least, assuming the antibiotics works well on the muscle strain, without more tests, we didn't know whether the antibiotics would cause allergy or other unpredictable effects. And once it is taken as part of the treatment, it may become toxic when mixed with other substance.

To summarize, the author's recommendation is ill conceived and poorly supported. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide more detailed information about the relationship between muscle strain and secondary infection. To better evaluate the argument, the author should ensure the sample is able to represent all the patients with muscle strain.（建议式结尾，提出修正的方法


整个结构比较紧凑，行文思路也很清晰，基本的逻辑错误也一一反驳了。。用词挺ARGUMENT,学习了

暗翼UID: 2658347

请问1010G精英组如何加入？
来晚了 还以为大家都没开始准备...

悦微微志燮UID: 2759026

改carol

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By drawing a comparison between the two groups of patients, the one group, which are given antibiotics by the doctor who specializes in sports, recuperate 4o percent quicker than typically expected. While the other group given sugar pills take no apparent difference about their recuperation time .the author concluded that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment seems logical.
         However, the author is failing to consider other possible alternatives to the recuperation time ‘s reduce. In their recuperation time, the patients have to intake of food .More generally, some food contains lots of nutrition, for example, meat, fish, eggs and so on. In part perhaps, the patients intake of much food which is rich in protein .There is equally no doubt that muscles lean more heavily on protein to be recuperated. If so, it is possible , in a certain extent, the protein food is responsible for the average recuperation’s time’s reduce. They too take some other medicine which undoubtedly impact their treatment. Similary, the patients who are given sugar pills maybe absorb the food which can take a hold of the muscle recovery, get better in the normal healing rate. Hence, there is no inevitable connection between antibiotics and the reduce of recuperation time. indeed, matter a litter.
        Even if they don’t absorb some food or other medicine which has good effect on muscle treatment. Still, there are some mistakes in the sampling experiments, in statistics. firstly, two groups’ doctors are different. one doctor called Dr.Newland, specializes in sports medicine. The other called Dr.Alton, a general physician. Different doctors have different ideas, and may take different treatment. so it will take different result. secondly, one group is given antibiotics while the other group is given sugar pills. There is no comparable basic on the ground that a blank group to contrast is not here. Moreover, if the people, in the two groups, come form different age , their rehabilitation process is naturally different. The old recovering slowly, but the young recuperate fast. This distinction is piled on the top of the reaction to illness by body itself between old and young. Thus, the precondition of the two group is different, the consequence is necessarily different. The result of the study is incomplete to be conclusive.（这段的攻击力很强的说，赞）
          Last but not least, the study, as the author highlights, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics. All patients diagnosed with muscle strain?? If the patients have other disease which will be more serious by take antibiotics, is this advise valuable ? The answer is absolutely no. so the claim is not so scientific and rigorous.
          Overall, the reason of taking antibiotics throughout muscle treatment seems logical, however, before any final decisions are made , the author should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes .

小词上没找到毛病，但不知道是复制粘贴出问题还是怎么的，有很多符号上的问题，应该用逗号用成了句号或者句号用成了逗号，大小写上也有问题，需要注意。
倒数第三段写的真好~~~逻辑性很强~~~