[1010G作文早起组]作文回收站

helen1010GUID: 2803722

欢迎大家继续加入我们，群108449882
tx们就把自己的作文贴上来吧，大家依次互拍，最好也看看其他同学的文章参考参考~

weaselUID: 2739489

顶，加油！ 早起，然后坚持！ Everything is gonna be OK！

sola-nanaUID: 2744594

把我最近的文章都贴过来~

Argument45
其他的等我自己改好了再粘~~

cant0577UID: 2781482

顶~~大家多多指教啊

暗翼UID: 2658347

留名
10G加油
还没开始准备...

georgeguoUID: 2804419

The argument concludes that it is the secondary infections that keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain and recommends that taking antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support its conclusion, the argument point out that those patient who took antibiotic regularly throughout their treatment recovered more quickly than typically expected and those who didn’t experienced a comparatively longer recuperation time.
However, closely scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it lends little support for the conclusion and the recommendation.

From the outset, the author cited a control between two groups. But the reliability of the study is not guaranteed without substantiating that the physical conditions as well as the severity of injures of the two groups’ members are similar. Perhaps patients in the second group are far more badly injured that those from first group, which tend to prolong the recuperating time. Without ruling out such possible scenario, the preliminary result of the study cited by the author could not be justified.


Secondly, even if the conditions of the two groups are similar, other facts may also account for the study result. For instance treatment offered by two doctors might be different. The fact from the argument informs me that the patients in first group of were all treated by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specialized in sport medicine. It is entirely possible that he is more skillful and experienced in such a field than Dr. Alton, a general physician who in charge of the second group. Thus patient in the first group recovered quicker because of Dr. Newland’s superior treatment.

Thirdly, the argument unfairly assumes all patients with muscle strain are suitable to taking antibiotics. Yet the argument fails to substantiate this assumption. Common sense informs me that a large amount of people may show allergic reaction to antibiotics and this may lead to serious consequence. What’s more, antibiotics may have great side-effect to a certain fraction of people. Without considering this momentous case, it is fallacious to draw any conclusions at all.

Finally, the author provides no evidence that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain will suffer from secondary infections.
Perhaps some of the patients just slightly injured and it is not serious enough to cause a second infection. Moreover, some of the patients may keep doing exercises regularly and they have a strong resistance to bacteria and viruses which lead to second infection. Hence there’s no need for them to take antibiotics.

In sum, although the argument is well presented, it is dubious at best. Before I can accept its conclusion, the author must provide me better evidence that patients in the two groups have similar physical conditions and receive equal quantity of treatment. Besides, to better evaluate the argument I would also need to know what fraction of patients is suitable for such a therapy and would suffer from secondary infection.

lemonlwcUID: 2772686

In this argument, the author suggestes that all patients are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics for secondary infections. A study of two groups of patients cited by author to support his suggestion. In the study, one group is treated by Dr.Nesland  with the antibiotics recovering faster than another group which is treated by Dr. Alton with sugar pills.However, as the following shows the argument is logically flawed in several respects which render it unwarranted.

To begin with, the study is operated by two different doctor specilizing in different fields.This method of studying weaken the strengthen of conclusion.Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine, while Dr.Alton is a general doctor. It is entirely possilble that Dr . Newland is skilled in curing the secondary infectios of muscle strain, which will reveal the effectiveness of antibiotics. Unless the author provide the eviedence that these two author applied same method to cure patients, the conclusion is weakened by this respect.

Morever,even if the doctors in the study are same, the author hasn’t eliminated the disparity of two groups patiens.There is the posibility that the patients in the first group has the better ability to recover form any muscle, or maybe they are the special sample such as sportsman, even they suffer from the severe strain, they can recover faster than ordianary people which is the sample in the second group.There isn’t any reference about the condditions of the patients. The conclusion can be strong enough if the sample with little discrepency.

Additionally, the conclusion that all patiens with such strain should take antibiotis is too absolute.Different people are characterised with different types of physicle conditions, the author just cites the effectiveness of healing, with no consideration about the negative effect about antibiotics for healing.If the antibiotics are not sutiable for some special groups of people, such as the ones are allergy with this medicine, it is all possibile to lead to severe problems, let alone helping patients to recover quickly.As the author cannot eliminate this possibiliy, author concludes too hastily to convince me that all patients should take anibiotic.

Finally, the sugar pills for sedond group are dubious as the author also doesn’s consider its negative effect.Though the recuperation of the patiens in the second group was not significantly reduced, if they are not given the sugar pills, maybe they will recover faster than the first group.Thus, the study cited by the author is not sufficient to support the conclusion.

To sum up, the reasoning in this argument is flawed in several respects:1.the difference about the doctors, as well as the patients sample is not taken into consideratio.2.the negative effect about the antibiotic, also the sugar pills is are also be negaletd. If the author wants to convince us that all patiens with muscle strain shoule take antibotics, he needs to give us the evidence that doctors operates the study in the same method.Also the samples are in the same physical condition.Furthermore ,the negative effect of the medicine in the study are also needed to be emliminated. If all flaws are corrected, the conclusion will strong enough for readers to accept.

helen1010GUID: 2803722

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.