1010G【fish】agument51

azure9UID: 2789030

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."

请于5月24日晚23点前提交作业。并把作业word文档发给互改的组员
1--->2指，1帮2改，2的作文给1改

第一次互改顺序：
1--->9
2--->10
5--->11
7--->1
9--->2
10--->5
11--->7

第一次自改文上交的时间是：5月25日晚23点

第二次互改的顺序：
1--->7
2--->9
5--->10
7--->11
9--->1
10--->2
11--->5




第二次自改文的上交时间是：5月27日晚23点

azure9UID: 2789030

The author of this argument concludes that patients who suffer from muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this conclusion, the author cites a study involving two groups of patients, who were treat separately by two doctors. One group with muscle stain taking antibiotics during the treatment recuperated quicker than the other group who did not take antibiotics. While, I find the argument is flawed in several important respects.

First, the two groups of study were treated separately by two doctors each of who have different experience on their area. A general physician may know about muscle injuries, but he could do less professional than a specialized doctor in sports medicine. There is a great possibility that the doctor who specializes in sports medicine has higher professional skills on muscle injuries than a general physician. Unless the author gives out more evidence to prove that the two doctors have equal treatment skills on muscle injuries, the argument is unconvinced.

Even assuming that the two doctors’ skills on muscle injuries were equally, the second group of patients was not clearly described the kind of injuries they have. Without this description, the result of the study is doubtable. It is possible that the second group of patients were injured from laryngitis, which would become worse after taking sugar pills. More over, the study also did not tell us the degree of the injuries the patients had. There is a possibility that the first group was mild injured while the second was severe. And the mild injuries were healed quicker than severe injuries. Without establishing that two groups of patients had the same degree of muscle injuries, the author cannot rely on this limited anecdotal evidence to support his conclusion.

Even assuming that the two groups of patients had the same muscle strain at the same degree, the author fails to consider the other alternative factors that many affect the result of the study. There are no evidence shows that the patients of two groups are picked randomly. Perhaps the first group of patients is consisted of children, who have the great metabolism which make the recuperation much easier than adults. Or perhaps the second groups of patients is living in a hot place, the temperature of there is not appropriate for recovering. Without ruling out such alternative explanations for the two groups of study, the author cannot defend the conclusion that based on the result of the study.

In conclusion, the author’s evidence lends little credible support to his conclusion. To persuade me that patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment, the author would need to provide clear evidence that both two doctors have the same skills on treating muscle injuries and the kind and degree of the injuries the patients have. Finally, to better evaluate the author’s claim, he needs to rule the alternative factors inside and outside the process of treatment.

=============================================================================

改一：

The author of this argument concludes that patients who suffer from muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this conclusion, the author cites a study involving two groups of patients, who were treated separately by two doctors. One group of patients with muscle stain taking antibiotics during the treatment recuperated quicker than the other group of patients who did not take antibiotics. While, I find the argument is flawed in several important respects.

First, the two groups of study were treated separately by two doctors each of who have different experience on their area. A general physician may know about muscle injuries, but he could do less professional than a specialized doctor in sports medicine. There is a great possibility that the doctor who specializes in sports medicine has higher professional skills on muscle injuries than a general physician. Unless the author gives out more evidence to prove that the two doctors have equal treatment skills on muscle injuries, the argument is unconvinced.

Even assuming that the muscle injuries treating skills of the general physician is as good as the specialized doctor in sports medicine, the second group of patients was not clearly described the kind of injuries they have. Without this description, the result of the study is doubtable. It is possible that the second group of patients were injured from laryngitis, which would become worse after taking sugar pills. More over, the study also did not tell us the degree of the injuries the patients had. There is a possibility that the first group was mild injured while the second was severe. And the mild injuries were healed quicker than severe injuries. Without establishing that two groups of patients had the same degree of muscle injuries, the author cannot rely on this limited anecdotal evidence to support his conclusion.

Even assuming that the two groups of patients had the same muscle strain at the same degree, the author fails to consider the other alternative factors that may affect the result of the study. There are no evidence shows that the patients of two groups are picked randomly. Perhaps the patients of the second group are all adults, while the first group of patients is consisted of children, who have the great metabolism which make the recuperation much easier than adults. Or perhaps the second groups of patients is living in a hot place, the temperature of there is not appropriate for recovering. Without ruling out such alternative explanations for the two groups of study, the author cannot defend the conclusion that based on the result of the study.

In conclusion, the author’s evidence lends little credible support to his conclusion. To persuade me that patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment, the author would need to provide clear evidence that both two doctors have the same skills on treating muscle injuries and the kind and degree of the injuries the patients have. Finally, to better evaluate the author’s claim, he needs to rule the alternative factors inside and outside the process of treatment.

azure9UID: 2789030

改polo:

In this argument, the arguer cites a research to prove the doctors' hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and then comes to the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.(稍微改寫一下嘛~) A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

As a threshold matter, the research cannot substantiate the hypothesis directly or indirectly. First, the hypothesis refers to the severe muscle strain, while patients involved in the research just get muscle injuries. Second, the arguer fails to provide information regarding the absolute number of the samples in the research. Assuming that there are only 5 patients in each group,(这边我觉得可以进一步说一下，选取的人数如果太少会没有代表性这样的话，不然就直接从5个人的样本得不出结论，那么人家也可以反驳说你没给出说明5个人为什么得出的结论不可靠) how can it justify the assumption?

Even we leave the above two points out of consideration, there still exists a logical problem in the research. As the common sense tells us, antibiotics can prevent infections, and in ideal conditions we suppose that none of the patient in the first group get the secondary infection. But the arguer fails to refer to whether the patients in the second group get secondary infections(這個地方是文章的背景，沒有必要去反駁它，反駁的重點應該是文章的結論，就是作者最後的那個conclusion，因為其實作者的conclusion是從那個study得來的，并沒有是從第一句給的那個背景得來，所以這裡的反駁是沒有必要的). If none of them get infected by chance, how can we draw the conclusion that it is the secondary infections that prevent patients from healing quickly(跟前面說的一樣，作者的結論是muscle strain的治療應該配合服用抗生素，因為有兩組病人，一組服用了好得快，一組沒有吃好的慢，他的結論并沒有從secondary infections這邊得到啊，而且如果你要用上common sense這一招，那common sense也告訴我嗎，感染是不可避免的，只是多多少少的問題啊). Even though there are some patient to get(to get嗎？我怎么覺得是geting,請教一下) infected, a numerous factors would also contribute to the same result that the average recuperation time of the first group is 40 percent quicker than that of the second group . In terms of the first group, the doctor is the one who (who)筆誤吧 specializes in sports medicine. He or she should has plenty of methods which are more rapid and effective than those of a general physician in treatment to muscle injuries. As to the second group,the hospital may has not enough good medical instruments compared to the first group (the arguer dose not point out that the two groups are in the same hospital) and the original body constitutions of the patients in the second group may be weaker than the first one.(這邊我覺得分開來寫會比較好，就是可能病人在不同醫院，而第二組病人所在醫院設備不好，那勢必影響康復效果，第二點寫第二組病人可能原始身體狀況就不好，所以康復的也慢。分開成兩點寫，然後一點點分析，把可能性分析的深入一點更有說服力) In a conclusion, the research cannot justify that the secondary infections is the exclusive reason which contributes to the obstruction of the recovery from muscle injuries.

这段论述感觉有点乱
【抗生素可以抑制感染。假设第一组全部都没感染，而第二组中并没有提到有没有感染，可能所有人都没有感染，如果是这样的话，就不能得到是感染keep from了康复。】這一部分的反駁其實算是無效的。就算要寫最後是分一段出來寫，全部寫在一段裡面就顯得反駁的重點不是那么清晰。
其他因素：
1、医生是专攻肌肉损伤的，一定有更多的方法去加速康复。(我覺得這裡應該算是一個邏輯錯誤，結果被你當成可能性來寫了，有點浪費，個人觀點，僅供參考)
2、醫院設施
3、人本身的体质constitution，或许有其他疾病，环境，心情


Even if we acknowledge that the hypothesis proves to be true by the research, it cannot be recommended that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. As we all know, antibiotics have side effects, which would be dangerous and ever fatal to some patients in some cases. Take Penicillin as an example, someone who is allergic to it would have anaphylactic shock when gets an excessive quantity of injection. If not be rescued in time, he or she will be dead.

In sum, the conclusion lacks credibility because the research cited is not strict and reasonable and the deduction is not logical. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer requires a much more rigorous research which should take the possible factors into consideration, some of which have been mentioned in the above analysis and a more logic inference to make the conclusion convincing.

條理有點混亂，最好每點分一段來說，即使說不完全部的邏輯問題，把每一點寫清楚了就可以了

===========================================================

改人烟：

In the argument presented above, the author shows a contrast experiment, and the arguer believes that it can confirm the doctors' hypothesis that it is secondary infections after severe muscle strain that hinder the patients from healing, and arrive at his/her conclusion that all patients who are suffering muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics. It is a paradox, because the author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate his conclusion and this argument contains several factors that are questionable.

First of all, the author fails to rule out the possibility that factors other that antibiotics may enable the first group of patients to recover more quickly on average. In the experiment, the patients in the first group were treated by the one who is a specialist in sports medicine. Therefore they are more likely to receive other treatments than the patients in the second group who were treated by a general physician, such as massage, acupuncture, or some kinds of special therapy, and as we all know, acupuncture in the treatment of muscle injuries has special effects. For example, with muscle strain, Yao, who is one of the most famous player in the NBA, would like to take not merely medicine but also the acupunctural treatments to make himself recover sooner. Moreover, is it possible that food which was ate by patients during recuperation time influence on how soon they will heal(the speed of healing這樣寫會不會更好)? Does the two groups’ healing environment locate in the same place and in the same season? Without answers to these questions, the speaker can not cite the experiment as evidence.

Even if the arguer had answered all the questions above, there are still some mistakes in the argument.
On the one hand, the unsubstantial evidence is too weak to prove the doctors' hypothesis. In the other word, it is probable that antibiotics did not eradicate the disease caused by the secondary infections but the disease caused by other factors such as unhealthy diet, or bad living habits, which may be the real reason that keeps the patients from healing quickly.(這邊可以再深入一步寫，說不好的生活習慣如何影響healing的，這樣深入分析后可能性會比較有說服力) Therefore, the author ought to give more details in the experiment to support his argument.

In addition, the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics is also unwarranted. The author ignored the necessary element that antibiotics may have side effect on patients, especially those who are also pregnant woman, children, and someone having allergies on it. It is entirely possible that the more you use antibiotics, the fast you will weak your immunity function. Thus whether antibiotics should be advised to patients with muscle strain is worth to be considered seriously.

To sum up, the above analysis has showed the fallacies the arguer made in this argument. Hence, to persuade the readers, the author needs to make his/her statement more reliable and put more emphasis on the detail experiment data. Furthermore, is it correct that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics without doubts?

文章條理還算清楚，就是有的可能性分析的不夠深入，導致說服力減弱。

凝羽欲翔UID: 2733350

1# azure9
In this argument, the author concludes that secondary infections will be a lion in the path of recuperation from muscle strain. To support his assertion, he cites the research of two groups of patients who suffer from muscle injuries. One group takes the antibiotic during recuperation time, while the other takes sugar pills. Though the result show the arguments convincing, several flaws can still be found after a carefully check into it.

First of all, the author fails to show that whether the patients in the two groups suffer from secondary infection or not. What the author wants to convince is the effect of secondary infection in the recuperation. However, obviously, the whole demonstration is based on the hypothesis that all of the patients in the research are diagnosed with secondary infection. So we have no idea whether antibiotic has a positive effect in the treatment of secondary infection or just do good to the common treatments. From this angle, the whole foundation of the argument is not so firm.

Secondly, the comparative experiments between two groups are not so convincing. From the argument, the groups are treated by two different doctors. We have no idea whether the two groups share the same extent to muscle strain, whether they will have other treatment before taking the pills, whether they share different physical qualification, such as ages, sex, or the manual labor they have, etc. As we all know, when we take comparative experiments to testify the correctness of conclusion, we should make sure that the conditions in these experiments should be the same strictly, otherwise, the difference in these conditions may cause a bias to the result, which will make our work in vain. Unfortunately, the author fails to convince us the consistency of these conditions.

Thirdly, thinking about the experiments of the second group. The patients were given sugar pills, but were told that was antibiotics. The author takes it as the comparative experiment to show the positive effect of antibiotic in the treatment. However, there are two questions that may shake the conclusion. One, does the sugar pills affect the time of recovery? When compared to those who also diagnose with muscle strain but take no drugs, this group intake one more pills, which contain different ingredient. The author shows little about the irrelevance of sugar pills to treatment. Two, how about the patients’ mentality? Many researches have showed that if patients have a good mentality, they will recover quicker, but if not, they may have to endure a little longer recuperation time. How about in this case? Same again, the author doesn’t mention anything about that.

In conclusion, with all the unknown questions that need to be solved, the argument is not as strong as it stands. To make it sound louder, the author needs to confirm all the factors described above.

一改 忘记改了，唉~给各位同胞造成不便，小凝say 声sorry先~

In this argument, the author concludes that antibiotic is effective in the treatment of muscle strain, especially for those that are suffered from second infections [polo讲得灰常有道理]. To support his assertion, he cites the research of two groups of patients who suffer from muscle injuries. One group takes the antibiotic during recuperation time, while the other takes sugar pills. Though the result shows the arguments convincing,several flaws can still be found after a careful check into it.

First of all, the author fails to show that whether the patients in the two groups suffer from secondary infection or not. What the author wants to convince is the effect of secondary infection in the recuperation. However, obviously, the whole demonstration is based on the hypothesis that all of the patients in the research are diagnosed with secondary infection. So we have no idea whether antibiotic has a positive effect in the treatment of secondary infection or just do good to the common treatments. From this angle, the whole foundation of the argument is not so firm.
//我觉得基于所有的病人都有secondary infection，这个说法应该指明是在进行research开始的那个时间点，也就是说加一个时间状语，这样更严谨一些，嘿嘿！
//不是很懂polo的意思，呵呵~求详解~

Secondly, the comparative experiments between two groups are not so convincing. From the argument, the groups are treated by two different doctors. We have no idea whether the two groups share the same extent to muscle strain（貌似是可以这样说的）, whether they will have other treatment before（我想表达的是他们在接受pills之前，有没有进行过别的treatment~） taking the pills, whether they share（我也说不出来为什么，感觉share比较常用，像share the same interest都可以这样讲，所以我就用share了） different physical qualification, such as ages, sex, or the manual labor（我是想说由于不同原因造成muscle strain，从而影响到其治疗效果，呵呵~） they have, etc. As we all know, when we take comparative experiments to testify the correctness of conclusion, we should make sure that the conditions in these experiments should be the same strictly, otherwise, the difference in these conditions may cause a bias to the result, which will make our work in vain. Unfortunately, the author fails to convince us the consistency of these conditions.

Thirdly, thinking about the experiments of the second group. The patients were given sugar pills, but were told that was antibiotics. The author takes it as the comparative experiment to show the positive effect of antibiotic in the treatment. However, there are one questions that may shake the conclusion. Does the sugar pills affect the time of recovery? When compared to those who also diagnose with muscle strain（嗯，我想到compare，就用被动了，你觉得用什么好呢？） but take no drugs, this group intake one more pill, which contains different ingredients. The author shows little about the irrelevance of sugar pills to treatment.
//polo有理，直接删掉了~

In conclusion, with all the unknown questions that need to be solved, the argument is not as strong as it stands. To make it sound louder, the author needs to confirm all the factors described above.
//嗯，polo讲得有理，我的想法是，题目可以分为两部分，第一部分，是讲一项对两组患者的研究的初步结果证实了二次感染会阻碍人们的肌肉康复；第二部分，是从第一部分中所进行的实验的出来的结果，即由于抗生素能加快治疗时间，所以，治疗过程中应该使用抗生素。因此，我的论证也分为两部分，第一部分，论证论题中对二次感染陈述不清，体现在文中第二段，第二部分，论证两个对比实验的不科学性，以论证，论题中的两组实验并没有说明抗生素在治疗过程中所起的作用，体现在第三、四段。可能我在陈述过程中的逻辑体现的不清楚，polo~你觉得怎么改比较好呢？

凝羽欲翔UID: 2733350

一改 小谦

In this argument, the author claimed that all patients suffered from muscle strain had better to take antibiotics to shorten their recuperation time. To support his argument, he cited a parallel study of two groups of patients treated with antibiotics or without antibiotics. Although his/her statement seems to be true at the first sight, a close scrutiny of this argument reveals that the study is nonsense.
  
Firstly, the author lacks some critical information about patients to convince us that this argument could represent the general condition. On one hand, unless the numbers of patients in each group are large enough and patients are chosen randomly throughout one certain area, the statistic data of this study have（has） scientific meaning. One（On，笔误呵呵~） the other hand, the ages, sex, condition of injury and other factors should also be taken into consideration when researchers choose patients to do research. The basic idea is that researchers need to guarantee two groups of patients are same in all the（other？） conditions before conducting experiments and the number of patients needs to be large enough.

What’s more, the researchers had not rule out the different effect bringing by two doctors. In this argument, one doctor specializes in sports medicine while the other one（感觉one可以省略哦） is a general physician. One doctor（感觉改为the doctor in the first group会顺些） took antibiotics regularly throughout patients’ treatment in the first group, whereas the statement did neither mention that the other doctor gave the instead pills regularly nor mention that he/she gave the pills throughout his/her patients treatment. （感觉这个句子不是很顺，如果改成这样呢？The statement mentioned that the doctor in the first group took antibiotics regularly throughout patients' treatment, but it failed to show us whether the other gave the instead pills regularly or just throughout the patients treatment.）To make the study more persuasive, two doctors at the same level should be asked to take care for two groups of patients.

In addition, the argument claimed that two groups of patients both believed that they were taking antibiotics while suggested（我觉得这里应该为suggesting，对于argument而言，这个动作应该可以算是主动的了） that two doctors may know which group take antibiotics and which group treat with sugar. Since doctors may unconsciously imply patients what they are truly treated with during the experiments, the result of the study could be a bias towards what people are expecting. Therefore, researchers should forbid doctors knowing the truth as well as all the patients.（不是很懂这段说的是什么意思呢，小谦？？）

One more fault is the hesitative conclusion drew by the author. At the beginning of the argument, it is after severe muscle strain that doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly, while the study which did not mention the patients’ condition of injury fails to convince this idea. Assuming that the study had demonstrated doctors’ suspicions, the author can only conclude that those patients who are diagnosed with server muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, but not all patients should receive this treatment.（这段是说，应该有个对比实验吗？~~）

All in all, this statement could not hold water（wow~学习了）. To make the argument more persuasive the author must offer the details of patients and conduct the experiment again with the suggestions that I stated above. Without a scientific experiment, the argument is illogical and untenable.

二改 polo~

In this argument, the arguer cites a research to prove the doctors' hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and then comes to the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

As a threshold matter（好词，怎么我学了两会都学不会。。）, the research cannot substantiate the hypothesis directly or indirectly（学习了）. First, the hypothesis refers to the severe muscle strain, while patients involved in the research just get muscle injuries. Second, the arguer fails to provide information regarding the absolute number（为什么要“绝对数”呢？） of the samples in the research（觉得这一句provide information regarding。。初读时不能让人感受到是讲实验数据不够的问题，建议修改）. If there are not enough samples in the research, it cannot represent the general situation. Assuming that there are only 5 patients in each group, how can it justify the assumption? （但是现在是25人啊，这个比喻我觉得不是很恰当，因为很可能就被人反咬一口：5人肯定不够，可我现在是25人啊）

Even we leave the above two points out of consideration（意思表达很到位）, there still exists a logical problem in the research. As the common sense tells us, antibiotics can prevent infections, and in ideal conditions we suppose that none of the patients in the first group get the secondary infection. But the arguer fails to refer to whether the patients in the second group get secondary infections. If none of them get infected by chance, which means that the basic factor we are going to test and verify has been omitted(好), how can we draw the conclusion that it is the secondary infections that prevent patients from healing quickly?

Even though there are some patients getting infected, a numerous factors would also contribute to the same result that the average recuperation time of the first group is 40 percent quicker than that of the second group . In terms of the first group, the doctor is the one that specializes in sports medicine. He or she should has plenty of methods which are more rapid and effective than those of a general physician in treatment to muscle injuries（where do you get the information that can support this view from argument? or you just get it from common sence? If latter, I think it's not so convincing）. As to the second group,the hospital may has not enough good medical instruments compared to the first group (the arguer dose not point out that the two groups are in the same hospital) and the original body constitutions of the patients in the second group may be weaker than the first one. In a conclusion, the research cannot justify that the secondary infections is the exclusive reason which contributes to the obstruction of the recovery from muscle injuries.

Even if we acknowledge that the hypothesis proves to be true by the research, it cannot be（感觉改为should not比较好哦，个人意见呵~） recommended that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. As we all know, antibiotics have side effects, which would be dangerous and ever fatal to some patients in some cases. Take Penicillin as an example, someone who is allergic to it would have anaphylactic shock(过敏性休克，好高级的词汇) when gets an excessive quantity of injection. If not be rescued in time, he or she will die.

In sum, the conclusion lacks credibility because the research cited is（are you sure it can be said like this? research cited?） not strict and reasonable and the deduction is not logical. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer requires a much more rigorous research which should take the possible factors into consideration, some of which have been mentioned in the above analysis and a more logic inference to make the conclusion convincing.

Polo好多连接词、证明的句子都写得很好、很有特色哦~好好学习~

agnes2010UID: 2794922

The argument assumes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics in order to recuperate quickly without the threat of secondary infection. In order to convince the reader, the arguer cites a study of two groups. The preliminary results given seem to be very convincing, but I discover the argument can be easily overturned.

To start with, the major premise of the argument is not tenable. The arguer argues that all patients suffering from muscle strain should take antibiotics as the possibility of getting secondary infections can be well reduced by the medicine. However, why should all this kind of patients follow the suggestion? And will all these patients get secondary infections? No evidence and statistics can be found to prove that all patients suffering from severe muscle strain will certainly encounter secondary infections. We can not neglect the fact that if patients diagnosed with muscle strain will not easily get secondary infections, the suggestion of take antibiotics is just a waste of time and efforts.

Secondly, the preliminary results of the study of two groups are not persuasive enough for several reasons. First of all, we can not conclude any condition of these patients themselves and the grouping information. If the patients’ conditions in the second group are worse than those in the first group, the final results may be not accurate as the sampling groups are different and the results can not be absolutely right. What’s more, the doctors in both groups, one is specialized in sports medicine and another is a general physician, differ in professions with extremely different medical knowledge. That means, a sports doctor may be familiar with the treatment of muscle strain and can bring the patients a much more reasonable treating plan helping them get healthy while a general physician command more knowledge on surgery instead of muscle strain.

Thirdly, the arguer’s conclusion is so assertive that the possible negative effect generated from taking antibiotics was turned a blind eye to. Yet, in spite of the effect of sterilization brought about by antibiotics, it will also generate other problem. For example, if a patient develops an allergy to antibiotics, he or she will never take such medicine. Then, how will the patient avoid secondary infections? Unless the medicine is suitable for the patient will its advantages be fully used. As a result, the argument neglects the importance of the medicine itself.

To sum up, the argument is not convincing enough to convince people for many reasons. It lacks background information and further analysis as well. To attest the argument, it is advisable for the arguer to give readers a scientific research to prove that antibiotics can recuperate patients with the same symptoms under the help of equal treatment.


改一：
谢谢小V啊~前天脑袋糊涂了...就直接把二改看成一改了...给大家带来好多麻烦~~~
小世博 哈哈 挺亲切的~~

The argument assumes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics in order to recuperate quickly without the threat of secondary infection. In order to convince the reader, the arguer cites a study of two groups. The preliminary results given seem to be very convincing, but I discover the argument can be easily overturned.

To start with, the major premise of the argument is not tenable. The arguer argues that all patients suffering from muscle strain should take antibiotics as the possibility of getting secondary infections can be well reduced by the medicine. However, why should all this kind of patients follow the suggestion? And will all these patients get secondary infections? No evidence and statistics can be found to prove that all patients suffering from severe muscle strain will certainly encounter secondary infections. We can not neglect the fact that if patients diagnosed with muscle strain will not easily get secondary infections, the suggestion of taking antibiotics is just a waste of time and efforts.

Secondly, the preliminary results of the study of two groups are not persuasive enough for several reasons. First of all, we can not conclude any condition of these patients themselves and the grouping information. If the patients’ conditions in the second group are worse than those in the first group, the final results may be not accurate as the sampling groups are different. What’s more, the doctors in both groups, one is specialized in sports medicine and another is a general physician, differ in professions and command extremely different medical knowledge. That means, a sports doctor may be familiar with the treatment of muscle strain and can bring the patients much more reasonable treating plans helping them get healthy while a general physician has a command of more knowledge on surgery instead of muscle strain.

Thirdly, the arguer’s conclusion is so assertive that the possible negative effect generated from taking antibiotics was turned a blind eye to. Yet, in spite of the effect of sterilization brought about by antibiotics, it will also generate other problem. For example, if a patient develops an allergy to antibiotics, he or she will never take such medicine. Unless the medicine is suitable for the patient will its advantages be fully used. As a result, the argument neglects the importance of the medicine itself.

To sum up, the argument is not convincing enough to convince people for many reasons. It lacks background information and further analysis as well. To attest the argument, it is advisable for the arguer to give readers a scientific research that antibiotics can recuperate patients with the same symptoms under the help of equal treatment.

agnes2010UID: 2794922

改小V：
In this argument, the author advocates that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this claim, the author cites preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. Close examination of the supporting evidence, however, reveals the author's claim is little credible.学习了~

First of all, the author falsely employ an incomplete comparison as a specious criteria and draw a conclusion that the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain has been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients without comprehensive consideration, which weaken this argument to a significant degree. The author only compares the average recuperation time, however, there are myriad of factors which, if differ in these cases, would bring about total different result for the comparison. The author does not inform us about【of】 the severity of injuries, physical conditions of the two groups of patients. Perhaps the first group of patients who took antibiotics are not seriously injured than the second group. Or perhaps the first group are those strong young men, while the second group is consisted of【consist直接用主动的就行啦consists of)】old women and children. So it is hardly to ascribe quick recovery to the function of antibiotics without other reasons. In addition, there might be other differences between treatments offered by the two doctors. The doctor's experiences and personal ability may affect patients' recovery speed. Generally a doctor who specializes in sports medicine is much more familiar with the muscle construction than a general physician. It can conclude that the good doctor shorten the recuperation time. Without any further consideration about these factors, the author could not convince us that take【taking】 antibiotics can help reducing【reduce】 the recuperation time merely based on an incomplete comparison.

Secondly, the information provided by the author is insufficient for the author to reach the conclusion. For the author only points out that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, but this piece of information in itself is far from【印象中far from的用法不是这样的，应该直接加名词或者动名词】 sufficient to demonstrate the assumption that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain will suffer from secondary infection. Although secondary infections may has little relation with muscle strain【这句although引导的句子没有从句啦？】. Perhaps the patients keep the part of muscle strain clean and dry will prevent secondary infections. More solid evidences are needed before we could be convinced that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics.

Thirdly, In claiming that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment, the author needs to do more comprehensive research on both positive and negative effects of the proposal. The antibiotics not only can defend secondary infections but also will bring other problems, such as side-effect. Although the proposal could be adopted to help some patients healing quickly after severe muscle strain to a certain degree, not all patients with muscle strain are suitable to take antibiotics. Perhaps some patients are allergic to antibiotics. Under such scenario, adopting the author's proposal would harm, rather than benefit, patients' health.
{与第一部分的论述篇幅相比，后面这两段的确有些不协调~建议精简一下第一部分，对第二三部分再略作补充~~}
In sum, the author cannot justify her voting recommendation on the basis of the scant evidence provided in the editorial. To strengthen the argument, we would need more information regarding a survey of how many patients diagnosed with muscle strain would have secondary infections. We also need make a research whether the antibiotics can reduce recuperation time under the same severity of injuries and physical condition of the two groups of patients treated by the same doctor.

总结：小V写的这篇文章很棒！感觉结构清晰，若是比例安排得更协调些就更好啦~~
否则在阅读上给人感觉前面写的很丰富，后面的内容就突然少了很多，容易产生误差~
文章中的好多句型和词汇都值得学习~

=================================================================
改polo~
In this argument, the arguer cites a research to prove the doctors' hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and then comes to the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

As a threshold matter, the research cannot substantiate the hypothesis directly or indirectly. First, the hypothesis refers to the severe muscle strain, while patients involved in the research just get muscle injuries. Second, the arguer fails to provide information regarding the absolute number of the samples in the research. If there are not enough samples in the research, it cannot represent the general situation. Assuming that there are only 5 patients in each group, how can it justify the assumption? 【我和小C的意见一致呢~觉得这里应该进一步说明一下不具代表性的原因~】
研究本身的漏洞：病情+样本数量

Even we leave the above two points out of consideration 学习~, there still exists a logical problem in the research. As the common sense tells us, antibiotics can prevent infections, and in ideal conditions we suppose that none of the patient in the first group get the secondary infection. But the arguer fails to refer to whether the patients in the second group get secondary infections. If none of them get infected by chance, which means that the basic factor we are going to test and verify has been omitted, how can we draw the conclusion that it is the secondary infections that prevent patients from healing quickly?
研究结论得出的前提中的逻辑问题 【我对逻辑问题真的是一知半解...不知道如何评价这一段~望指教~】

Even though there are some patients getting infected, a numerous factors would also contribute to the same result that the average recuperation time of the first group is 40 percent quicker than that of the second group . In terms of the first group, the doctor is the one that specializes in sports medicine. He or she should has【have】 plenty of methods which are more rapid and effective【我觉得将method说成effective可以 不过rapid就有待商榷了~感觉有点中式，供参考】 than those of a general physician in treatment to muscle injuries. As to the second group,the hospital may has not enough good medical instruments【这里容易给读者造成歧义~我就有点疑惑：到底是没有足够的好的医疗设备 还是没有足够好的医疗设备，我觉得在这里用后者更好，不过建议可以改为：the hospital may lack medical instruments good enough，仅供参考啦~】 compared to the first group (the arguer dose not point out that the two groups are in the same hospital) and the original body constitutions of the patients in the second group may be weaker than the first one【这里我觉得可以补充说明一下两组样本身体状况不一样会带来的问题】. In a conclusion, the research cannot justify that the secondary infections is the exclusive reason学习啦！ which contributes to the obstruction of the
recovery from muscle injuries.
研究本身存在的问题。【最后一句有些不解，前面说了医生的治疗和病人本身的情况对结论的影响，后面怎么突然总结道了secondary infection？不太理解~望赐教~】

Even if we acknowledge that the hypothesis proves to be true by the research, it cannot be recommended that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. As we all know, antibiotics have side effects, which would be dangerous and ever fatal to some patients in some cases. Take Penicillin as an example, someone who is allergic to it would have anaphylactic shock when gets an excessive quantity of injection.学习~ If not be rescued in time, he or she will die.
抗生素的副作用

In sum, the conclusion lacks credibility because the research cited is not strict and reasonable and the deduction is not logical. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer requires a much more rigorous research which should take the possible factors into consideration, some of which have been mentioned in the above analysis and a more logic inference to make the conclusion convincing.

总结：
不知道我说的对不对，不过感觉段与段之间的论述有些没有条理...
从研究本身存在的问题 到其中的逻辑问题 再到研究存在的问题，感觉研究存在的漏洞太多而且被分散开来了，如果能抓住重点的漏洞，分段来攻击，我想回会更好。
个人感觉~仅供参考哦~
polo的语言很棒~有好多好词好句都学习了~

谦行天下UID: 2797557

In this argument, the author claimed that all patients suffered from muscle strain had better to take antibiotics to shorten their recuperation time. To support his argument, he cited a parallel study of two groups of patients treated with antibiotics or without antibiotics. Although his/her statement seems to be true at the first sight, a close scrutiny of this argument reveals that the study is nonsense.
  
Firstly, the author lacks some critical information about patients to convince us that this argument could represent the general condition. On one hand, unless the numbers of patients in each group are large enough and patients are chosen randomly throughout one certain area, the statistic data of this study have scientific meaning. One the other hand, the ages, sex, condition of injury and other factors should also be taken into consideration when researchers choose patients to do research. The basic idea is that researchers need to guarantee two groups of patients are same in all the conditions before conducting experiments and the number of patients needs to be large enough.

What’s more, the researchers had not rule out the different effect bringing by two doctors. In this argument, one doctor specializes in sports medicine while the other one is a general physician. One doctor took antibiotics regularly throughout patients’ treatment in the first group, whereas the statement did neither mention that the other doctor gave the instead pills regularly nor mention that he/she gave the pills throughout his/her patients treatment. To make the study more persuasive, two doctors at the same level should be asked to take care for two groups of patients.

In addition, the argument claimed that two groups of patients both believed that they were taking antibiotics while suggested that two doctors may know which group take antibiotics and which group treat with sugar. Since doctors may unconsciously imply patients what they are truly treated with during the experiments, the result of the study could be a bias towards what people are expecting. Therefore, researchers should forbid doctors knowing the truth as well as all the patients.

One more fault is the hesitative conclusion drew by the author. At the beginning of the argument, it is after severe muscle strain that doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly, while the study which did not mention the patients’ condition of injury fails to convince this idea. Assuming that the study had demonstrated doctors’ suspicions, the author can only conclude that those patients who are diagnosed with server muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, but not all patients should receive this treatment.

All in all, this statement could not hold water. To make the argument more persuasive the author must offer the details of patients and conduct the experiment again with the suggestions that I stated above. Without a scientific experiment, the argument is illogical and untenable.


————————————————————————第一次自改文——————————————
多谢小凝，很受用
最后一段删了，nonsense，其他地方都有改掉
In this argument, the author claimed that all patients suffered from muscle strain had better to take antibiotics to shorten their recuperation time. To support his argument, he cited a parallel study of two groups of patients treated with antibiotics or without antibiotics. Although his/her statement seems to be true at the first sight, a close scrutiny of this argument reveals that the study is nonsense.
  
Firstly, the author lacks some critical information about patients to convince us that this argument could represent the general condition. On one hand, unless the numbers of patients in each group are large enough and patients are chosen randomly throughout one certain area, the statistic data of this study has scientific meaning. On the other hand, the ages, sex, condition of injury and other factors should also be taken into consideration when researchers choose patients to do research. The basic idea is that researchers need to guarantee two groups of patients are same in all the other conditions before conducting experiments and the number of patients needs to be large enough.

What’s more, the researchers had not rule out the different effect bringing by two doctors. In this argument, one doctor specializes in sports medicine while the other is a general physician. The statement mentioned that the doctor in the first group took antibiotics regularly throughout patients' treatment, but it failed to show us whether the other gave the instead pills regularly and throughout the patients treatment. To make the study more persuasive, two doctors at the same level should be asked to take care for two groups of patients.

In addition, the psychological implications of both doctors and patients could cause a bias towards what people are expecting. Although the argument claimed that two groups of patients both believed that they were taking antibiotics, it failed to demonstrate that two doctors may know the truth of which group took antibiotics and which group treated with sugar. Since doctors may unconsciously imply patients what they are truly treated with during the experiments, the result of the study could be a bias because of people’s psychological impacts. Therefore, researchers should forbid doctors knowing the truth as well as all the patients.

All in all, this statement could not hold water. To make the argument more persuasive the author must offer the details of patients and conduct the experiment again with the suggestions that I stated above. Without a scientific experiment, the argument is illogical and untenable.

——————————第二次自改文————————————
感谢人烟，交流中学习、成长、提高，我相信我们都会有很大进步！
与你交流了解了自己的不足，感谢！
In this argument, the author claimed that all patients suffered from muscle strain had better to take antibiotics to shorten their recuperation time. To support his argument, he cited a parallel study of two groups of patients treated with antibiotics or without antibiotics. Although his/her statement seems to be true at the first sight, a close scrutiny of this argument reveals that the study is groundless.

Firstly, the author lacks some critical information about patients to convince us that this argument could represent the general condition. On one hand, unless the numbers of patients in each group are large enough and patients are chosen randomly throughout one certain area, the statistic data of this study has scientific meaning. On the other hand, the ages, sex, condition of injury and other factors should also be taken into consideration when researchers choose patients to do research. The basic idea is that researchers need to guarantee two groups of patients are same in all the other conditions before conducting experiments and the number of patients needs to be large enough.

What’s more, the researchers had not rule out the different effects bringing by two doctors. In this argument, the doctor in the first group specializes in sports medicine while the other in the second group is a general physician. The statement mentioned that the doctor in the first group took antibiotics regularly throughout patients' treatment, but it failed to show us whether the other gave the instead pills regularly and the treatment was carried throughout the patients’ whole treatment as well. To make the study more persuasive, two doctors at the same level should be asked to take care of two groups of patients.

In addition, the psychological implications of both doctors and patients could cause a bias towards what people are expecting. Although the argument claimed that two groups of patients both believed that they were taking antibiotics, it failed to demonstrate that two doctors may know the truth of which group took antibiotics and which group treated with sugar. Since doctors may unconsciously change their attitudes towards patients after they knew the truth, or even blind by their subjective views when they collect statistic data from their patients, the result of the study could be a bias because of people’s psychological impacts. Therefore, researchers should forbid doctors knowing the truth as well as all the patients.

All in all, this statement could not hold water. To make the argument more persuasive the author must offer the details of patients and correct the other defects in the experiment. Without a scientific experiment, the argument is illogical and untenable.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

改 烟火

In the argument presented above, the author shows a contrast experiment, which confirms the doctors' hypothesis that it is secondary infections after severe muscle strain that hinder the patients from healing, and arrive at his/her conclusion that all patients who are suffering muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics. It seems to be sound, but the author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate his conclusion and this argument contains several factors that are questionable.

First of all, the author fails to rule out the possibility that factors other that antibiotics may enabled[时态不太对的说] the first group of patients to recover more quickly on average. In the experiment, the patients in the first group were treated by the one who is a specialist in sports medicine. Therefore they are more likely to receive other treatments, which the patients in the second group cannot take, such as massage, acupuncture, or some kind of special therapy, and as we all know, acupuncture in the treatment of muscle strain has special effects. For example, with muscle strain, Yao[如果是名人是不是应该简单介绍一下] would like to take not merely medicine but also the acupunctural treatments to make him recover sooner. Moreover, is it possible that food which was ate by patients during recuperation time influence on how quickly they will heal? Does the two groups’ healing environment locate in the same place and in the same season?

Even if the arguer had answered all the questions above[该句不完整，没有主句，应与后面合成一句]. Still, there are some mistakes in the argument.

On the one hand, the unsubstantial evidence is not sufficient to prove the doctors' hypothesis. In the other[another] word, it is probable that antibiotics did not kill[cure] the disease caused by the secondary infections but the disease caused by other factors such as unhealthy diet, or bad living habits, which may be the real reason that keep[单复数不对的说] the patients from healing quickly.
//你的意思是说抗生素不一定治的是第二次感染，而是其他的disease。因此，如果建议，在做实验的时候，研究院选择每个组的patient的时候，patient的病情应该只有这一个disease，两组Patient的情况应该差不多才好。[我认为这是根本上的问题！]

On the other hand, 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. The author ignored the necessary element that antibiotics may have side effect on patients, especially those who are also pregnant woman, children, and having allergies on it. It is entirely possible that the more you use antibiotics, the fast you
lose your immunity[你的表达不是很准确呢，不会lose immunity，只能说抵抗力会变弱，我查一个是weak the immunity function]. Thus whether antibiotics should be advised to patients with muscle strain worths[worth用法有问题，be worth sth/doing sth] being considered seriously.

To sum up, the above analysis has showed the fallacies the arguer made. Hence [多余] , to persuade the readers, the author need to make his/her statement more reliable and put more emphasis on the detail experiment data. Further, is it correct that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics without doubts?


我认为你要注意细节错误呢
正文第二段的建议希望你考虑考虑
同时建议使用语言的时候注意不要使用中式英语。
加油！

————————————分割线——————————

改Anges二改
The argument assumes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics in order to recuperate quickly without the threat of secondary infection. 【改写得很好】In order to convince the reader, the arguer cites a study of two groups. The preliminary results given seem to be very convincing, but I discover the argument can be easily overturned.

To start with, the major premise of the argument is not tenable. The arguer argues that all patients suffering from muscle strain should take antibiotics as the possibility of getting secondary infections can be well reduced by the medicine. However, why should all this kind of patients follow the suggestion? And will all these patients get secondary infections? No evidence and statistics can be found to prove that all patients suffering from severe muscle strain will certainly encounter secondary infections. We can not neglect the fact that if patients diagnosed with muscle strain will not easily get secondary infections, the suggestion of taking antibiotics is just a waste of time and efforts.
//写得好~~

Secondly, the preliminary results of the study 【of two groups】{有些多余了，可以删了} are not persuasive enough for several reasons. First of all, we can not conclude any condition【s】 of these patients themselves and the grouping information. If the patients’ conditions in the second group are worse than those in the first group, the final results may be not accurate as the sampling【这个是名词，修饰group可以么】 groups are different. What’s more, the doctors in both 【改为two要好一些，both一般是说共同点】groups, one is specialized in sports medicine and another is a general physician, differ in【这里感觉语法有问题，如果表示补充解释，是不是用ing形式？】 professions and command【同前问】 extremely different medical knowledge. That means, a sports doctor may be familiar with the treatment of muscle strain and can bring the patients much more reasonable treating plans helping them 【get healthy】(recovery是不是要好一点） while a general physician has a command of more knowledge on surgery instead of muscle strain.

Thirdly, the arguer’s conclusion is so assertive that the possible negative effect generated from taking antibiotics was turned a blind eye to. Yet, in spite of the effect of sterilization brought about by antibiotics, it will also generate other problem. For example, if a patient develops an allergy to antibiotics, he or she will never take such medicine. Unless the medicine is suitable for the patient will its advantages be fully used. As a result, the argument neglects the importance of the medicine itself.
//该段和第一段的论述的问题好像可以合并呢。我的理解是第一段讲得是，不是all patient要用抗生素，因为不是所有的人都得第二次感染；该段是讲抗生素可能带来负面影响。
或者第一段和第三段，作为两个相连的两端是不是攻击顺序更好一点？

To sum up, the argument is not convincing enough to convince【两个convince在一起建议换一个】 people for many reasons. It lacks background information and further analysis as well. To attest the argument, it is advisable for the arguer to give readers a scientific research that antibiotics can recuperate patients with the same symptoms under the help of equal treatment.

觉得Anges的表达很地道！要向你学习！

polosongruiUID: 2595436

1

1.  research 并没有直接或间接地证明doctor's hypothesis
        1) 前面的假设中指出的是严重肌肉损伤这种情况，而实验组中只是肌肉损伤
        2) 实验只告诉了相对比值，没有绝对数量，如果每个实验组只有5个人，怎么
            能证明假设的普遍性
        3) 常识：抗生素可以抑制感染。假设第一组全部都没感染，而第二组中并没有提到
           有没有感染，可能所有人都没有感染，如果是这样的话，就不能得到是感染keep from
           了康复。即使有人感染，那么对第一组而言，缩短康复时间的因素还有很多，而且
           医生是专攻肌肉损伤的，一定有更多的方法去加速康复。而对第二组而言，导致没
           缩短的原因也很多，例如人本身的体质constitution，或许有其他疾病，环境，心情
          等
2.  即使我们承认这个研究证明了这项假设，但也不能说all，因为抗生素是有side effect，
     使用不当会有致命的危险



In this argument, the arguer cites a research to prove the doctors' hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and then comes to the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

As a threshold matter, the research cannot substantiate the hypothesis directly or indirectly. First, the hypothesis refers to the severe muscle strain, while patients involved in the research just get muscle injuries. Second, the arguer fails to provide information regarding the absolute number of the samples in the research. Assuming that there are only 5 patients in each group, how can it justify the assumption?

Even we leave the above two points out of consideration, there still exists a logical problem in the research. As the common sense tells us, antibiotics can prevent infections, and in ideal conditions we suppose that none of the patient in the first group get the secondary infection. But the arguer fails to refer to whether the patients in the second group get secondary infections. If none of them get infected by chance, how can we draw the conclusion that it is the secondary infections that prevent patients from healing quickly. Even though there are some patient to get infected, a numerous factors would also contribute to the same result that the average recuperation time of the first group is 40 percent quicker than that of the second group . In terms of the first group, the doctor is the one who who specializes in sports medicine. He or she should has plenty of methods which are more rapid and effective than those of a general physician in treatment to muscle injuries. As to the second group,the hospital may has not enough good medical instruments compared to the first group (the arguer dose not point out that the two groups are in the same hospital) and the original body constitutions of the patients in the second group may be weaker than the first one. In a conclusion, the research cannot justify that the secondary infections is the exclusive reason which contributes to the obstruction of the recovery from muscle injuries.

Even if we acknowledge that the hypothesis proves to be true by the research, it cannot be recommended that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. As we all know, antibiotics have side effects, which would be dangerous and ever fatal to some patients in some cases. Take Penicillin as an example, someone who is allergic to it would have anaphylactic shock when gets an excessive quantity of injection. If not be rescued in time, he or she will be dead.

In sum, the conclusion lacks credibility because the research cited is not strict and reasonable and the deduction is not logical. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer requires a much more rigorous research which should take the possible factors into consideration, some of which have been mentioned in the above analysis and a more logic inference to make the conclusion convincing.

------------自改一，谢谢组长，咱们的意见不统一，不过可以在这样的讨论中，互相都得到提高，嘿嘿！乌啦啦！------------

In this argument, the arguer cites a research to prove the doctors' hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and then comes to the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

As a threshold matter, the research cannot substantiate the hypothesis directly or indirectly. First, the hypothesis refers to the severe muscle strain, while patients involved in the research just get muscle injuries. Second, the arguer fails to provide information regarding the absolute number of the samples in the research. If there are not enough samples in the research, it cannot represent the general situation. Assuming that there are only 5 patients in each group, how can it justify the assumption?

Even we leave the above two points out of consideration, there still exists a logical problem in the research. As the common sense tells us, antibiotics can prevent infections, and in ideal conditions we suppose that none of the patient in the first group get the secondary infection. But the arguer fails to refer to whether the patients in the second group get secondary infections. If none of them get infected by chance, which means that the basic factor we are going to test and verify has been omitted, how can we draw the conclusion that it is the secondary infections that prevent patients from healing quickly?

Even though there are some patients getting infected, a numerous factors would also contribute to the same result that the average recuperation time of the first group is 40 percent quicker than that of the second group . In terms of the first group, the doctor is the one that specializes in sports medicine. He or she should has plenty of methods which are more rapid and effective than those of a general physician in treatment to muscle injuries. As to the second group,the hospital may has not enough good medical instruments compared to the first group (the arguer dose not point out that the two groups are in the same hospital) and the original body constitutions of the patients in the second group may be weaker than the first one. In a conclusion, the research cannot justify that the secondary infections is the exclusive reason which contributes to the obstruction of the
recovery from muscle injuries.

Even if we acknowledge that the hypothesis proves to be true by the research, it cannot be recommended that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. As we all know, antibiotics have side effects, which would be dangerous and ever fatal to some patients in some cases. Take Penicillin as an example, someone who is allergic to it would have anaphylactic shock when gets an excessive quantity of injection. If not be rescued in time, he or she will die.

In sum, the conclusion lacks credibility because the research cited is not strict and reasonable and the deduction is not logical. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer requires a much more rigorous research which should take the possible factors into consideration, some of which have been mentioned in the above analysis and a more logic inference to make the conclusion convincing.

------------------------自改二，谢谢小凝，我尽快回复你提到的问题---------------------------------------------------

In this argument, the arguer cites a research to prove the doctors' hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and then comes to the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

As a threshold matter, the research cannot substantiate the hypothesis directly or indirectly. First, the hypothesis refers to the severe muscle strain, while patients involved in the research just get muscle injuries. Second, the arguer fails to provide information regarding the absolute number of the samples in the research. If there are not enough samples in the research, it cannot represent the general situation. Assuming that there are only 5 patients in each group, how can it justify the assumption?

Even we leave the above two points out of consideration, there still exists a logical problem in the research. As the common sense tells us, antibiotics can prevent infections, and in ideal conditions we suppose that none of the patient in the first group get the secondary infection. But the arguer fails to refer to whether the patients in the second group get secondary infections. If none of them get infected by chance, which means that the basic factor we are going to test and verify has been omitted, how can we draw the conclusion that it is the secondary infections that prevent patients from healing quickly?

Even though there are some patients getting infected, a numerous factors would also contribute to the same result that the average recuperation time of the first group is 40 percent quicker than that of the second group . In terms of the first group, the doctor is the one that specializes in sports medicine. He or she may have plenty of methods which are more rapid and effective than those of a general physician in treatment to muscle injuries. As to the second group,the hospital may has not enough good medical instruments compared to the first group (the arguer dose not point out that the two groups are in the same hospital) and the original body constitutions of the patients in the second group may be weaker than the first one. In a conclusion, the research cannot justify that the secondary infections is the exclusive reason which contributes to the obstruction of the
recovery from muscle injuries.

Even if we acknowledge that the hypothesis proves to be true by the research, it should not be recommended that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. As we all know, antibiotics have side effects, which would be dangerous and ever fatal to some patients in some cases. Take Penicillin as an example, someone who is allergic to it would have anaphylactic shock when gets an excessive quantity of injection. If not be rescued in time, he or she will die.

In sum, the conclusion lacks credibility because the research is not strict and reasonable and the deduction is not logical. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer requires a much more rigorous research which should take the possible factors into consideration, some of which have been mentioned in the above analysis and a more logic inference to make the conclusion convincing.

polosongruiUID: 2595436

2
--------又一次修改偶像小凝的，哇哈哈哈！！！！改的不对的地方，记得帮我纠正啊！------------------
In this argument, the author concludes that secondary infections will be a lion in the path of recuperation from muscle strain. To support his assertion, he cites the research of two groups of patients who suffer from muscle injuries. One group takes the antibiotic during recuperation time, while the other takes sugar pills. Though the result show the arguments convincing,several flaws can still be found after a carefully(careful) check into it.
//我怎么觉得conclusion应该是最后一句all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment，而secondary infections will be a lion in the path of recuperation from muscle strain是医生的假设，作者拿了一个没有逻辑论证关系的研究来证明这个假设，进而得到他/她的conclusion.

First of all, the author fails to show that whether the patients in the two groups suffer from secondary infection or not. What the author wants to convince is the effect of secondary infection in the recuperation. However, obviously, the whole demonstration is based on the hypothesis that all of the patients in the research are diagnosed with secondary infection. So we have no idea whether antibiotic has a positive effect in the treatment of secondary infection or just do good to the common treatments. From this angle, the whole foundation of the argument is not so firm.
//我觉得基于所有的病人都有secondary infection，这个说法应该指明是在进行research开始的那个时间点，也就是说加一个时间状语，这样更严谨一些，嘿嘿！

Secondly, the comparative experiments between two groups are not so convincing. From the argument, the groups are treated by two different doctors. We have no idea whether the two groups share the same extent to muscle strain（学习了，可是不知道这样说地道不?望指教！）, whether they will have other treatment before（我觉得before有点怪，aside from会不会好一些） taking the pills, whether they share（为什么是share啊？怎么理解啊？） different physical qualification, such as ages, sex, or the manual labor（这个怎么理解啊？体力劳动？放在这里和前面有什么啊？） they have, etc. As we all know, when we take comparative experiments to testify the correctness of conclusion, we should make sure that the conditions in these experiments should be the same strictly, otherwise, the difference in these conditions may cause a bias to（哇！） the result, which will make our work in vain（我怎么就没想到呢？？学习啦！）. Unfortunately, the author fails to convince us the consistency of these conditions.

Thirdly, thinking about the experiments of the second group. The patients were given sugar pills, but were told that was antibiotics. The author takes it as the comparative experiment to show the positive effect of antibiotic in the treatment. However, there are two questions that may shake the conclusion. One, does the sugar pills affect the time of recovery? When compared to those who also diagnose with muscle strain（这里可以不被动可以吗？） but take no drugs, this group intake one more pills, which contain different ingredient. The author shows little about the irrelevance of sugar pills to treatment. Two, how about the patients’ mentality? Many researches have showed that if patients have a good mentality, they will recover quicker, but if not, they may have to endure a little longer recuperation time. How about in this case? Same again, the author doesn’t mention anything about that.
//two的部分我就不是很能理解了，第二组were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics.这样的做法不就为了使他们mentality和第一组一样吗？而我觉得此处去论述mentality的影响，似乎有点跑题！
In conclusion, with all the unknown questions that need to be solved, the argument is not as strong as it stands. To make it sound louder, the author needs to confirm all the factors described above.
//整体上还是很棒的，可总是感觉把题目中的最后一句的内容给丢了！而且我觉得作者前面说了一大堆东西就是为了告诉人们antibiotic能加快康复，让人们肌肉受伤了要吃antibiotic。而谬论也正在于此！这是我的理解，请求指教，嘿嘿！

---------------------改组长的，乌啦啦!!!-------------------------------------------------------------------

The author of this argument concludes that patients who suffer from muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this conclusion, the author cites a study involving two groups of patients, who were treated separately by two doctors. One group of patients with muscle stain taking antibiotics during the treatment recuperated quicker than the other group of patients(这个就删掉吧，前面说了是病人了，加上有点赘余) who did not take antibiotics. While, I find the argument is flawed in several important respects.

First, the two groups of study were treated separately by two doctors each of who have
different experience on their area. A general physician may know about muscle injuries, but he could do（应该是be吧） less professional than a specialized doctor in sports medicine. There is a great possibility that the doctor who specializes in sports medicine has higher professional skills on （我觉得这加个treatment吧，不然读起来感觉像是说在肌肉损伤上有很高超的技能，应该是治疗上）muscle injuries than a general physician. Unless the author gives out more evidence to prove that the two doctors have equal treatment skills on muscle injuries, the argument is unconvinced.

Even assuming that the muscle injuries treating skills of the general physician is as good as the specialized doctor in sports medicine, the second group of patients was not clearly described
about the kind of injuries they have. Without this description, the result of the study is doubtable. It is possible that the second group of patients were(和前面的have不是很和谐) injured from laryngitis, which would become worse after taking sugar pills. More over（不用分开的, moreover）, the study also did not tell us the degree of the injuries the patients had. There is a possibility that the first group was mild injured while the second was severe. And the mild injuries were healed quicker than severe injuries. Without establishing that two groups of patients had the same degree of muscle injuries, the author cannot rely on this limited anecdotal(这个怎么理解啊，教教我吧) evidence to support his conclusion.

Even assuming that the two groups of patients had the same muscle strain at the same degree, the author fails to consider the other alternative factors that may affect the result of the study. There are no evidence shows that the patients of two groups are picked randomly. Perhaps the patients of the second group are all adults, while the first group of patients is consisted of children, who have the great metabolism which make the recuperation much easier than adults. Or perhaps the second groups of patients is living in a hot place, the temperature of there is not appropriate for recovering. Without ruling out such alternative explanations for the two groups of study, the author cannot defend the conclusion that based on the result of the study.

In conclusion, the author’s evidence lends little credible support to his conclusion. To persuade me that patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment, the author would need to provide clear evidence that both two doctors have the same skills on treating muscle injuries and the kind and degree of the injuries the patients have. Finally, to better evaluate the author’s claim, he needs to rule the alternative factors inside and outside the process of treatment.
//整体不错，不过组长我提个问题啊，就是使三个even没有太大的感觉，我觉得用even要在两个因素在试验中的影响程度有差别的时候，这时用比较有感觉！如果两个因素的分量一样，感觉就没有必要了！个人看法，仅供参考，有机会讨论一下啊！

lty900301UID: 2715509

1.并不一定是抗生素产生的效果。因为在两组试验中，第一组是一位专攻运动医学的Newland医生进行的治疗，第二组是一位全科医生负责的治疗。有可能，Newland有Alton没有的专业性使得他有更好的治愈方法，比如说按摩，针灸等等。
2.即是是抗生素使得康复时间缩短了，那么也还是有一些错误的。
3.一方面，没有证据证明是抗生素可以防止二次感染妨碍患者康复速度。换句话说，作者不能通过这个对比性试验来说医生的假设被证明了。
4.另一方面，作者不能得出那样的结论，作者忽略了抗生素可能带来的副作用

In the argument presented above, the author shows a contrast experiment, which confirms the doctors' hypothesis that it is secondary infections after severe muscle strain that hinder the patients from healing, and arrive at his/her conclusion that all patients who are suffering muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics. It seems to be sound, but the author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate his conclusion and this argument contains several factors that are questionable.

First of all, the author fails to rule out the possibility that factors other that antibiotics may enabled the first group of patients to recover more quickly on average. In the experiment, the patients in the first group were treated by the one who is a specialist in sports medicine. Therefore they are more likely to receive other treatments, which the patients in the second group cannot take, such as massage, acupuncture, or some kind of special therapy, and as we all know, acupuncture in the treatment of muscle strain has special effects. For example, with muscle strain, Yao would like to take not merely medicine but also the acupunctural treatments to make him recover sooner. Moreover, is it possible that food which was ate by patients during recuperation time influence on how quickly they will heal? Does the two groups’ healing environment locate in the same place and in the same season?

Even if the arguer had answered all the questions above. Still, there are some mistakes in the argument.

On the one hand, the unsubstantial evidence is not sufficient to prove the doctors' hypothesis. In the other word, it is probable that antibiotics did not kill the disease caused by the secondary infections but the disease caused by other factors such as unhealthy diet, or bad living habits, which may be the real reason that keep the patients from healing quickly.

On the other hand, 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. The author ignored the necessary element that antibiotics may have side effect on patients, especially those who are also pregnant woman, children, and having allergies on it. 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 strain worths being considered seriously.

To sum up, the above analysis has showed the fallacies the arguer made. Hence, to persuade the readers, the author need to make his/her statement more reliable and put more emphasis on the detail experiment data. Further, is it correct that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics without doubts?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
自改第一次——谢谢小谦的细心修改

In the argument presented above, the author shows a contrast experiment, and the arguer believes that it can confirm the doctors' hypothesis that it is secondary infections after severe muscle strain that hinder the patients from healing, and arrive at his/her conclusion that all patients who are suffering muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics. It is a paradox, because the author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate his conclusion and this argument contains several factors that are questionable.

First of all, the author fails to rule out the possibility that factors other that antibiotics may enable the first group of patients to recover more quickly on average. In the experiment, the patients in the first group were treated by the one who is a specialist in sports medicine. Therefore they are more likely to receive other treatments than the patients in the second group who were treated by a general physician, such as massage, acupuncture, or some kinds of special therapy, and as we all know, acupuncture in the treatment of muscle injuries has special effects. For example, with muscle strain, Yao, who is one of the most famous player in the NBA, would like to take not merely medicine but also the acupunctural treatments to make himself recover sooner. Moreover, is it possible that food which was ate by patients during recuperation time influence on how soon they will heal? Does the two groups’ healing environment locate in the same place and in the same season? Without answers to these questions, the speaker can not cite the experiment as evidence.

Even if the arguer had answered all the questions above, there are still some mistakes in the argument.
On the one hand, the unsubstantial evidence is too weak to prove the doctors' hypothesis. In the other word, it is probable that antibiotics did not eradicate the disease caused by the secondary infections but the disease caused by other factors such as unhealthy diet, or bad living habits, which may be the real reason that keeps the patients from healing quickly. Therefore, the author ought to give more details in the experiment to support his argument.

In addition, the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics is also unwarranted. The author ignored the necessary element that antibiotics may have side effect on patients, especially those who are also pregnant woman, children, and someone having allergies on it. It is entirely possible that the more you use antibiotics, the fast you will break down your immunity. Thus whether antibiotics should be advised to patients with muscle strain is worth to be considered seriously.

To sum up, the above analysis has showed the fallacies the arguer made in this argument. Hence, to persuade the readers, the author needs to make his/her statement more reliable and put more emphasis on the detail experiment data. Furthermore, is it correct that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics without doubts?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
自改第二次——感谢组长小C的指教。了解了很多，至少在我们练习写Argu的时候，我们应该更充分的去论证没一个错误，而不是求多。

In the argument presented above, the author shows a contrast experiment, and the arguer believes that it can confirm the doctors' hypothesis that it is secondary infections after severe muscle strain that hinder the patients from healing, and arrive at his/her conclusion that all patients who are suffering muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics. It is a paradox, because the author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate his conclusion and this argument contains several factors that are questionable.

First of all, the author fails to rule out the possibility that factors other that antibiotics may enable the first group of patients to recover more quickly on average. In the experiment, the patients in the first group were treated by the one who is a specialist in sports medicine. Therefore they are more likely to receive other treatments than the patients in the second group who were treated by a general physician, such as massage, acupuncture, or some kinds of special therapy, and as we all know, acupuncture in the treatment of muscle injuries has special effects, which help most athletes with muscle strain recuperate quickly. Moreover, is it possible that food which was ate by patients during recuperation time influence on how soon they will heal? Does the two groups’ healing environment locate in the same place and in the same season? Without answers to these questions, the speaker can not cite the experiment as evidence.

Even if the arguer had answered all the questions above, there are still some mistakes in the argument.
On the one hand, the unsubstantial evidence is too weak to prove the doctors' hypothesis. In the other word, it is probable that antibiotics did not eradicate the disease caused by the secondary infections but the disease caused by other factors such as unhealthy diet, or bad living habits, which may be the real reason that keeps the patients from healing quickly. For example, a patient on an unhealthy diet, may ingest less protein, which is vital to his/her recuperation of muscle strain. Therefore, the author ought to give more details in the experiment to support his argument.

In addition, the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics is also unwarranted. The author ignored the necessary element that antibiotics may have side effect on patients, especially those who are also pregnant woman, children, and someone having allergies on it. It is entirely possible that the more you use antibiotics, the fast you will break down your immunity. Thus whether antibiotics should be advised to patients with muscle strain is worth to be considered seriously.

To sum up, the above analysis has showed the fallacies the arguer made in this argument. Hence, to persuade the readers, the author needs to make his/her statement more reliable and put more emphasis on the detail experiment data. Furthermore, is it correct that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics without doubts?

lty900301UID: 2715509

一改组长小C，灰常紧张的说。。。
The author of this argument concludes that patients who suffer from muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this conclusion, the author cites a study involving two groups of patients, who were treat（treated） separately by two doctors. One group(不太清楚这里简写是否可行，毕竟有拉伤并且服用抗生素的是患者，不是小组。) with muscle stain taking antibiotics during the treatment recuperated quicker than the other group who did not take antibiotics. While, I find the argument is flawed in several important respects.

First, the two groups of study were treated separately by two doctors each of who have different experience on their area. A general physician may know about muscle injuries, but he could do less professional than a specialized doctor in sports medicine. There is a great possibility that the doctor who specializes in sports medicine has higher professional skills on muscle injuries than a（我认为这里用the限定好一些吧？） general physician. Unless the author gives out more evidence to prove that the two doctors have equal treatment skills on muscle injuries, the argument is unconvinced.(这句话很好。)

Even assuming that the two doctors’ skills on muscle injuries were equally（equal）(我觉得这句话可以写成，“即使假设全科医生在治愈肌肉拉伤方面和那位专科医生一样好”，只是建议), the second group of patients was not clearly described the kind of injuries they have. Without this description, the result of the study is doubtable. It is possible that the second group of patients were injured from laryngitis, which would become worse after taking sugar pills. More over, the study also did not tell us the degree of the injuries the patients had. There is a possibility that the first group was mild injured while the second was severe. And the mild injuries were healed quicker than severe injuries. Without establishing that two groups of patients had the same degree of muscle injuries（这里似乎有些问题，原文提到的muscle strain表示的是肌肉扭伤。但是muscle injuries值的范围可能就比较大了，前文也有一些地方用到muscle injuries，我觉得直接用原文的muscle strain就可以了）, the author cannot rely on this limited anecdotal(学习了) evidence to support his conclusion.
//这两个攻击点很好，没发现呢，学习到了:)

Even assuming that the two groups of patients had the same muscle strain at the same degree, the author fails to consider the other alternative factors that many（后面写的是affect，我想你这里想用may的吧？） affect the result of the study. There are（is） no evidence shows that the patients of two groups are picked randomly. Perhaps the first group of patients is consisted of children（这里提到第一组可能都是孩子，但是也要腔调一下第二组里面都是成人吧，否则也是有问题的。个人意见。。）, who have the great metabolism which make the recuperation much easier than adults. Or perhaps the second groups（group） of patients is living in a hot place, the temperature of there(建议：where the temperature) is not appropriate for recovering（我觉得这里不应该说温度不适合恢复，而是应该说温度高可能会导致回恢复的速度变慢。。这里我也不太清楚，你考虑一下吧）. Without ruling out such alternative explanations for the two groups of study, the author cannot defend the conclusion that based on the result of the study.

In conclusion, the author’s evidence lends little credible support to his conclusion. To persuade me（觉得这里用us更好一些，可以引起读者共鸣） that patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment, the author would（这个可以不要，感觉读的不太顺） need to provide clear evidence that both two doctors have the same skills on treating muscle injuries and the kind and degree of the injuries the patients have. Finally, to better evaluate the author’s claim, he needs to rule the alternative factors inside and outside the process of treatment.

------------------------------------------------------------------分割线-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
二改，改小谦

In this argument, the author claimed that all patients suffered from muscle strain had better to take antibiotics to shorten their recuperation time. To support his argument, he cited a parallel study(学习到了) of two groups of patients treated with antibiotics or without antibiotics. Although his/her statement seems to be true at the first sight, a close scrutiny of this argument reveals that the study is nonsense（我不知道这样用是否合适，毕竟作者只是犯了很多逻辑错误，如果nonsence有点夸大了吧。。个人想法。。）.

Firstly, the author lacks some critical information about patients to convince us that this argument could represent the general condition. On one hand, unless the numbers of patients in each group are large enough and patients are chosen randomly throughout one certain area, the statistic data of this study has scientific meaning. On the other hand, the ages, sex, condition of injury and other factors should also be taken into consideration when researchers choose patients to do research. The basic idea is that researchers need to guarantee two groups of patients are same in all the other conditions before conducting experiments and the number of patients needs to be large enough.
//这一段很好，发挥了你的专长。。好好学习一下~~

What’s more, the researchers had not rule out the different effect（复数吧？） bringing by two doctors. In this argument, one doctor specializes in sports medicine while the other is a general physician.（我觉得这里应该把专科医生在第一组和全科医生在第二组写清楚，否则后面会产生歧义） The statement mentioned that the doctor in the first group took antibiotics regularly throughout patients' treatment, but it failed to show us whether the other gave the instead pills regularly and throughout the patients treatment（我觉得这里就可以不要了，因为前面写到throughout patients' treatment，这里又写，会让读者不舒服的。）. To make the study more persuasive, two doctors at the same level should be asked to take care for（of） two groups of patients.

In addition, the psychological implications of both doctors and patients could cause a bias towards what people are expecting. Although the argument claimed that two groups of patients both believed that they were taking antibiotics, it failed to demonstrate that two doctors may know the truth of which group took antibiotics and which group treated with sugar. Since doctors may unconsciously imply patients what they are truly treated with during the experiments, the result of the study could be a bias because of people’s psychological impacts. Therefore, researchers should forbid doctors knowing the truth as well as all the patients.
//我个人认为，这个攻击点不是太好。因为文中提到第二组病人认为那是抗生素，那是事实，如果按照你所论述的，医生会暗示病人，那么病人就不会认为那是抗生素了啊。也就是说（个人意见啊）你攻击了一个事实。（我觉得这一点，你可以参考一下，或者有空讨论一下。）

All in all, this statement could not hold water(nice!!!). To make the argument more persuasive the author must offer the details of patients and conduct the experiment(我认为这里让作者去再做这个实验不太好，毕竟实验不是他做的，他只是引用。也许他根本不会做实验:funk: ) again with the suggestions that I stated above. Without a scientific experiment, the argument is illogical and untenable.

梦想在路上UID: 2812986

In this argument, the author advocates that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this claim, the author cites preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. Close examination of the supporting evidence, however, reveals the author's claim is little credible.

First of all, the author falsely employ an incomplete comparison as a specious criteria and draw a conclusion that the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain has been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients without comprehensive consideration, which weaken this argument to a significant degree. The author only compares the average recuperation time, however, there are myriad of factors which, if differ in these cases, would bring about total different result for the comparison. The author does not inform us about the severity of injuries, physical conditions of the two groups of patients. Perhaps the first group of patients who took antibiotics are not seriously injured than the second group. Or perhaps the first group are those strong young men, while the second group is consisted of old women and children. So it is hardly to ascribe quick recovery to the function of antibiotics without other reasons. In addition, there might be other differences between treatments offered by the two doctors. The doctor's experiences and personal ability may affect patients' recovery speed. Generally a doctor who specializes in sports medicine is much more familiar with the muscle construction than a general physician. It can conclude that the good doctor shorten the recuperation time. Without any further consideration about these factors, the author could not convince us that take antibiotics can help reducing the recuperation time merely based on an incomplete comparison.

Secondly, the information provided by the author is insufficient for the author to reach the conclusion. For the author only points out that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, but this piece of information in itself is far from sufficient to demonstrate the assumption that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain will suffer from secondary infection. Although secondary infections may has little relation with muscle strain. Perhaps the patients keep the part of muscle strain clean and dry will prevent secondary infections. More solid evidences are needed before we could be convinced that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics.

Thirdly, In claiming that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment, the author needs to do more comprehensive research on both positive and negative effects of the proposal. The antibiotics not only can defend secondary infections but also will bring other problems, such as side-effect. Although the proposal could be adopted to help some patients healing quickly after severe muscle strain to a certain degree, not all patients with muscle strain are suitable to take antibiotics. Perhaps some patients are allergic to antibiotics. Under such scenario, adopting the author's proposal would harm, rather than benefit, patients' health.

In sum, the author cannot justify her voting recommendation on the basis of the scant evidence provided in the editorial. To strengthen the argument, we would need more information regarding a survey of how many patients diagnosed with muscle strain would have secondary infections. We also need make a research whether the antibiotics can reduce recuperation time under the same severity of injuries and physical condition of the two groups of patients treated by the same doctor.

比例超级不协调的说，真难看，唉！

------------------------------辛苦的分割线------------------------------------------------------------------------
自改一
辛苦小世博，彻底大刀阔斧的改了，好看多了\(^o^)/~

In the argument, the arguer concludes that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. Yet close scrutiny of this argument, however, it suffers several flaws.

First, the mere fact that the average recuperation time of the first group of patients was much shorter than that of the second group of patients does not necessarily indicate that it is the function of taking antibiotics that help patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. A myriad of other factors must be taken into consideration, such as the conditions of both patients and doctors. It is entirely possible that the patients in the first group are much younger, stronger and suffering slighter muscle injuries than those in the second group. Another possibility is that Dr. Newland has more experiences about treating muscle injuries than Dr. Alton, as the former one specializes in sports medicine while the latter is just a general physician.

Next, granted that taking antibiotics do shorten average recuperation time of patients who are suffered secondary infections, another point worth considering is that the argument relies on the assumption that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would have secondary infections. However there is no guarantee that it is the case. Perhaps only those patients injured severe muscle strain would suffer secondary infections. Or perhaps only parts of patients with severe muscle strain could possibly cause secondary infections.

Finally, even if the argument can demonstrate the assumption that patients with muscle strain would must have secondary infections, the arguer’s assertion that all patients should be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is still unwarranted. Common sense and experience inform us that none kind of medicines could be suited for all patients. It is most likely that some patients would have allergic responses when they take antibiotics. It is also likely that antibiotics have certain seriously negative effects which will threaten one’s healthy.

In sum, the argument is not pervasive as it stands. To strength the argument, the arguer should provide more detail about the two groups of patients and doctors. To better assess the argument, I would like to know more about the feasibility of taking antibiotics.

---------------------------------------------继续的分割线-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
哪位好心人帮我二改呀( ⊙ o ⊙ )？？？

梦想在路上UID: 2812986

改 05小世博
The argument assumes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics in order to recuperate quickly without the threat of secondary infection. In order to convince the reader, the arguer cites a study of two groups. The preliminary results given seem to be very convincing, but I discover the argument can be easily overturned.
To start with, the major premise of the argument is not tenable学习了！. The arguer argues that all patients suffering from muscle strain should take antibiotics as the possibility of getting secondary infections can be well reduced by the medicine. However, why should all this kind of patients follow the suggestion? And will all these patients get secondary infections? No evidence and statistics can be found to prove that all patients suffering from severe muscle strain will certainly encounter secondary infections. We can not neglect the fact that if patients diagnosed with muscle strain will not easily get secondary infections, the suggestion of take【taking】
antibiotics is just a waste of time and efforts.
//不是所有病人都会感染
Secondly, the preliminary results of the study of two groups are not persuasive enough for several reasons. First of all, we can not conclude any condition of these patients themselves and the grouping information. If the patients’ conditions in the second group are worse than those in the first group, the final results may be not accurate as the sampling groups are different and the results can not be absolutely right【这句话说：结果不对，因为…，所以结果不对。建议删掉一个】. What’s more, the doctors in both groups, one is specialized in sports medicine and another is a general physician, differ in professions with extremely different medical knowledge【这话没啥错，就是读着不太顺，个人感觉供参考】. That means, a sports doctor may be familiar with the treatment of muscle strain and can bring the patients a much more reasonable treating plan【建议改为plans，与前面patients对应】
helping them get healthy while a general physician command more knowledge on surgery instead of muscle strain.
//研究结果有问题。病人情况不知，医生情况不同
Thirdly, the arguer’s conclusion is so assertive that the possible negative effect generated from taking antibiotics was turned a blind eye to学习了！. Yet, in spite of the effect of sterilization brought about by antibiotics, it will also generate other problem. For example, if a patient develops an allergy to antibiotics, he or she will never take such medicine. Then, how will the patient avoid secondary infections?【觉得这句不需要了，有点多余】 Unless the medicine is suitable for the patient will its advantages be fully used. As a result, the argument neglects the importance of the medicine itself.
//忽略副作用。
To sum up, the argument is not convincing enough to convince people for many reasons. It lacks background information and further analysis as well. To attest the argument, it is advisable for the arguer to give readers a scientific research to prove【去掉更好】 that antibiotics can recuperate patients with the same symptoms under the help of equal treatment.

总结：小世博，呵呵，以后就这么叫了哈O(∩_∩)O~
全文逻辑条理很清晰，分析得也很到位，只有些小错误一看就是赶出来的
很八错的，学习了

-----------------------学习的分割线------------------------------------------------------------------------------
改 02小凝
In this argument, the author concludes that antibiotic is effective in the treatment of muscle strain, especially for those that【who】 are suffered from second infections. To support his assertion, he cites the research of two groups of patients who suffer from muscle injuries. One group takes the antibiotic during recuperation time, while the other takes sugar pills. Though the result shows the arguments convincing, several flaws can still be found after a careful check into it.

First of all, the author fails to show that whether the patients in the two groups suffer from secondary infection or not. What the author wants to convince is the effect of secondary infection in the recuperation. However, obviously, the whole demonstration is based on the hypothesis that all of the patients in the research are diagnosed with secondary infection. So we have no idea whether antibiotic has a positive effect in the treatment of secondary infection or just do good to the common treatments. From this angle, the whole foundation of the argument is not so firm.
//是否遭受二次感染。是抗生素起作用于二次感染还是普通治疗。
【小凝，关于这点我理解为就算抗生素只是对治疗好还是没有驳倒作者的结论，服用抗生素还是有用，好像和你不太一样？】

Secondly, the comparative experiments between two groups are not so convincing. From the argument, the groups are treated by two different doctors. We have no idea whether the two groups share the same extent to muscle strain, whether they will have other treatment before taking the pills, whether they share different physical qualification, such as ages, sex, or the manual labor【不太明白？】 they have, etc. As we all know, when we take comparative experiments to testify the correctness of conclusion, we should make sure that the conditions in these experiments should be the same strictly, otherwise, the difference in these conditions may cause a bias to the result, which will make our work in vain学习了！. Unfortunately, the author fails to convince us the consistency of these conditions.
//两组实验不完全相同。

Thirdly, thinking about the experiments of the second group. The patients were given sugar pills, but were told that was antibiotics. The author takes it as the comparative experiment to show the positive effect of antibiotic in the treatment. However, there are one questions that may shake the conclusion. Does the sugar pills affect the time of recovery? When compared to those who also diagnose with muscle strain but take no drugs, this group intake one more pill, which contains different ingredients.【小凝是想说糖片含有的其他成分起作用了？】 The author shows little about the irrelevance of sugar pills to treatment.
//糖片有影响。

In conclusion, with all the unknown questions that need to be solved, the argument is not as strong as it stands. To make it sound louder, the author needs to confirm all the factors described above.

总结：全文观点明确，条理性很强。小凝的语言组织能力还是一向的好，学习学习，赞一个！
只是在个别问题上我们的看法稍有分歧，有待探讨。总之非常不错( ^_^ )！