1010G【fish】agument51

creativeUID: 2193617

Argument 51

In the given argument, the author claims that taking antibiotics would be good for the recovering of those patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. A study of two groups of patients is cited to support the claim. In the study, one group of patients taking antibiotics get a shorter recuperation time than the other group not being given antibiotics. Careful scrutiny of every aspect, however,reveals that the author's claim is not convincingly supported by the preliminary result of the study.

First of all, there is no sufficient evidence showing that the usage of antibiotics played a significant, at least positive, role in the reduction of recuperation time of the first group of patients in the cited study. Comparing the treatment conditions of the two groups, not only were the pills different, but the doctors and patients themselves were also different. It is entirely reasonable to believe that Dr. Newland who specializes in sports medicine has more experience in the treatment of muscle strain than Dr. Alton,a general physician. This may implies that two groups were treated in different processes. According to that, another possibility arises, which puts the difference between the treatment processes of two doctors in front of the different usage of antibiotics as the most important reason to the fast recuperation of the first group. Based on above discussion, the author cannot easily draw the conclusion that the antibiotics must help people recover from muscle strain.

Even if it were possible that the two doctors were using similar treatment processes,except the usage of antibiotics, in the study, it would be of little reliability to assume that the two group of patients would have the same recuperation time if none of them was taking antibiotics. Maybe the first group of patients got weaker injuries than the second group did. Or probably, the first group of patients had better overall health conditions than the second group had. For example the first group were all strong and healthy young men before injuries, while the second group were full of unhealthy old people. Therefore, in order to lend enough reliability to the study, the author needs to provide the evidence that the two group of patients were excepted to have the same recuperation time if they were both taking antibiotics.

Last but not least, even if the result of the study were assumed to be reliable, it would be utterly safe to generalize it to all the people. On one hand, without proving that the sample capacity of the study was statistically large enough, one may not believe that the antibiotics will always work well, in particular for the patients who are very different from those involved in the study. On the other hand, the author should not overlook the side effects of antibiotics and the possibility of existence of such pills that have no, or slight, side effects but are almost the same helpful in the treatment of muscle strain. Without carefully thinking about these issues, the author is making a arbitrary decision.

To sum up, the given argument is unconvincing due to its logical flaws. The main evidence, the preliminary result of a study on muscle strain treatment, is cited in an unreliable way. To strengthen it, the author should provide further evidence to show that the experiment conditions of the two groups were identically equivalent, except the usage of antibiotics, and there were many enough patients involved in the study. Also, the author should stand a careful argument about the generalization of the result of the study by comparing the positive and side effects of antibiotics with other medicines with similar function.

creativeUID: 2193617

Red means mistakes;
Green means suggestions;
Blue means comments on paragraphs;
Magenta means comments on the whole essay.

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

Revision of #18, by Frances

In this argument, the author uses two kinds of preliminary studies {There is only one study with onepreliminary result containing two groups of patients} of patients to prove that all the muscle strain patients are supposed to take antibotics [antibiotics] {You mis-spelled this word several times in this essay, I correct the rest without announcements} to [in order to] {for very close there is another “to”.} make them get quicker recoverage [recovering / recuperation]from the illness {not general illness but inparticular muscle injuries}. One group were[was] given antibiotics comparing to the other one were[was] just given sugar pills. With the different stastical [statistical] results,the author tries to get a conclusion {“tries” seems to weak here, which is not suitable for an argument essay.} that all the patients who suffers [suffer] muscle strain should be better to {Again, the expression is too weak here.} take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

[The first paragraph is organized in a considerable logical way, in spite of some minor misunderstanding of the given argument and grammatic mistakes. ]

Firstly, However[however], lets [let us] checkout the first study [group] in which all the patients took antibiotics for treatment. By considering the stastistics [statistics] of 40percents patients recovered quicker [patients recovered 40 percents quicker] than before,the author assumes that this increased part  [increasing] of people [of recovering speed] caused by taking antibiotics. But[,]as all we know[,] that{Omit it} there are many reasons for [to] the recover [recovering]from an illness, such as the patients’ diet,their mood {Good points!} and the enviroment [environment] even the weather conditions, there’s[there is] no conclusive evidence to say that the increasing part [increasing] is [caused] by taking antibiotics.

[A good point is drawn in this first body paragraph. The reviewer thinks that the author successfully captures the most important flaw in the given argument. The author, however, should put his/her point in the beginning of the paragraph, say the first or second sentence, instead of the end of it.]

Another point the author fail[fails] to notice is that these two groups were lead[treated] by two different kinds of doctors.One is [: one was] Dr.[you need a space here]Newland who is [an] expert in sports medicine and the other one is [was]a general physician. Thus there should apparently be much different in their treatment [treatments] for muscle strain. Even if antibiotics do take effect in Dr.[you need a space here]Newland’s treatment, but [yet]{or simply omit this “but”} there’s[there is] no evidence stated in the argument that whether it is [was] still efficiant [effictient] with [in] Dr.[need a space here]Alton’s treatment. There may be other factors that could contribute to the no effact [less effectiveness] of Dr.[you need a space here]Alton’s treatment, not only [except] taking of antibiotics. The author’s attempt to establish a causal relationship between the antibiotics and the quicker recoverage [recovering / recuperation] from muscle strain is farfetched[far-fetched].

[It is a good paragraph too. This time the reviewer can find the point in the first sentense.]

Finally, these two studies just give [the study just gives] us a temperory [temporary] {I think the word“temporary” is not necessary here.} statistics of the recovering time. Whether there is [are]any side effects caused by the antibiotics after the patients getting better is unknown. However, there is [are]still many other evidences in need [missing] {I am not sure about the usage of “in need” here.} to prove that antibiotic is [antibiotics] really do [does] take effect without causing no {Using“without” and “no” at the same time makes no sense.}other more badly [more serious / worse]illness for these patients who get muscle strain.

[This paragraph needs a conclusion. The author begins with stating that the given argument fails to consider the side effects of antibiotics, and then points out why it should be taken into account, but forgets to give a conclusion what does these mean to the given argument. ]

In an [a] conclusion, the author commit [commits] a fallacy of hasty generalization. To get more convinced to the reader the author should offer {Good structure!} the detail of each different treatment and make it clear that the antibiotics work with certain treatment is availble [available] and make an apparent affect [effect / influence] on the quick recovering from muscle strain.

[The first sentence of the ending paragraph is not good, because hasty generalization is not the main mistake, due to above discussion, but just a second minor logic fallacy in the given argument. The second sentence is fine.]

It is quite a good essay since the author just begins to prepare for AW writing.The author has the sense of how to write an argument essay, and knows what kind of structures of sentences, paragraphs and the essay as  a whole should be used. The author can also pretty accurately capture the logical imperfections of the given argument.

Several things the reviewer wants to point out here are:

• Just a tiny hint about the writing format, the author should always put a space after “.” and “,”.
• Avoid using abbreviations, like “it's”, “there's”, etc.
• At the beginning of preparation, the author can try to correct the spelling and simple grammatic mistakes by pasting the essay in to a word process software, like MS Office Word.

franceneUID: 2818958

外源第一次写。。写的好烂呀，大家多多包含。。

In this argument, the author uses two kinds of  preliminary studies of patients to prove that all the muscle strain patients are supposed to take antibotics to make them get quicker recoverage from the illness.one group were given antibiotics comparing to the other one were just given sugar pills.With the different stastical results,the author tries to get a conclusion that all the patients who suffers muscle strain should be better to take antibiotics as part of  their treatment.

Firstly,However,lets check out the first study in which all the patients took antibiotics for treatment.By considering the stastistics of 40 percents patients recovered quicker than before,the author assumes that this increased part of people caused by taking anbotics.But as all we know that there are many reasons for the recover from an illness,such as the patients’ diet,their mood and  the enviroment even the weather conditions,there’s no conclusive evidence to say that the increasing part is by taking anbotics.

Another point the author fail to notice is that these two groups were lead by two different kinds of doctors.One is Dr.Newland who is expert in sports medicine and the other one is a general physician.Thus there should apparently be much different in their treatment for muscle strain.Even if anbotics do take effect in Dr.Newland’s treatment,but there’s no evidence stated in the argument that whether it is still efficiant with Dr.Alton’s treatment.There may be other factors that could contribute to the no effact of Dr.Alton’s treatment,not only taking of anbotics.The author’s attempt to establish a causal relationship between the anbotics and the quicker recoverage from muscle strain is farfetched.

Finally, these two studies just give us a temperory statistics of the recovering time. Whether there s any side effects caused by the anbotics after the patients getting better is unknown.However,there s stilll many other evidences in need to prove that anbotic is really do take effect without causing no other more badly illness for these patients who get muscle strain.

In an conclusion,the author commit a fallacy of hasty generalization.To get more convinced to the reader the author should offer the detail of each different treatment and make it clear that the anbotics work with certain treatment is availble and make an apparent affect on the quick recovering from muscle strain.

1.增长并不能完全说明是由于抗生素造成的
2.即使抗生素有效，但不同医生的疗法不同，第一个医生疗法与抗生素的效果不能证明第二个医生的疗法与抗生素共同使用就有效
3.两个研究是都短期观察的数据，不能说明长期是否有副作用。

哎呀。。刚开始复习AW，跟下来好累，大家都写的好好呀>_<

梦想在路上UID: 2812986

17# creative

creative 你可真勤奋 向你致敬

creativeUID: 2193617

呵呵，早上起来，吃个鸡蛋，写篇Argu，喝杯牛奶，该篇作文，然后骑上单车去学校，很是惬意啊~~

19# 梦想在路上

bestcampUID: 2640940

来的晚了 0524  ARGU 51
Flaws:
1.Using antibiotics and secondary infection is not certainly related.
2.Test condition is not equal in the two groups.
Not everyone of the two groups will suffer secondary infection.  
Doctor is not the same in two groups.
Other alternatives are not considered.

The argument assumes that weather using antibiotics will accelerate the rate of recovery by muscle strain. To support this point of view, the author cites an experiment that two groups of people are treated differently by using antibiotics or not. It seems that with support of the study it is quite right, but if we think it though, we will find some flaws.

To start with, we can deduce from the passage that the author wants to suggest that using antibiotics will lower the chance suffering secondary infection. But the relation between antibiotics and secondary infection is not such clear. Secondary infection is not easily avoided by just using antibiotics. Antibiotics are not the only medicine that can use to avoid secondary infection. There are many other alternatives to choose.

Even we assume that the two are closely related then the test conditions are not equal in two groups is certain. I will show it in three aspects. Firstly, not every member of the two groups will suffer from secondary infection. There are many kinds of muscle injures and not every kind will definitely result in secondary infection. So if some of them are not suffered from secondary infection, then the study is useless because the percentage is not right at all. It may be much lower than 40% in the first group. Secondly, doctors in two groups are not the same. One is a specialist in sports medicine, which is definitely good at medicine treatment. T he other is a general physician, which is more excellent in pure treatment. So what other medicine except antibiotics is given and how they treat the patients before medicine is not the same. Thirdly, patients in the second group are given sugar pills but they are informed antibiotics. So there is psychological factor that patients think they have eaten antibiotics so they will recover quicker.

To sum up, the argument is not such convincing as it is looked like. It will be better and more convincing if the author can just provide a study under equal conditions and eliminate other alternatives.