【战G兔斯基】作业Argument 51作业提交楼

fanyue3014568UID：2647099

15# elenalsh
我也觉得写得真好！
感觉很有想法，语句也很流畅！最后那个“即使结论正确我们也应该慎用抗生素”真是风骚啊~~~ym！

Lil'天UID：2818567

4# fanyue3014568
Based on the experiment concerning 2 groups of people taking different therapies and recovering at different speed, the writer draws the conclusion that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Reasonable as it may seem as first sight, it suffers from several serious flaws.

First of all, as has been cited, the first group --the group treated with antibiotics by a specialist in sports medicine-- recovers at a speed 40 percent quicker than typically expected, while the latter one shows no significant change. However, the writer doesn't tell us the number of people in either group. What if there are [M1] only 1 person in the 1st group, who happens to recover quicker? The limited number of samples lacks credibility and thus can't be representative.

Secondly, even if the number of each group is sufficient enough to be representative, the differences in the grouped patients might still cause the result. Their age range, body condition and way of life may also be the causes of the different result. Since the writer doesn't provide us with further information, it's reasonable to assume that the first group is made up of vigorous young people who generally recover quicker from sports injury while the latter one, seniors who generally lacks vigorousness.

Thirdly, a doctor specialized in sports medicine is bound to[M2] have more experience in treating muscle strain compared with a general physician. Taking this into account, we may say as well  it's the doctor, rather than the medicine itself, that contributes to the significant change in the recovering speed.

Last but not least, in the end of the letter the writer hastily concludes that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics[M3] as part of their treatment. But from the survey we can only know that antibiotics might be helpful for severe injuries. Suggesting all patients to take antibiotics, regardless of the severeness of injury, might cause other problems. To name a few, the side effect on less severe injuries and the extra cost[M4] etc.

To sum up, this argument would be more convincing if the writer can provide us with more details of the groups--the number of samples, the age range and the living habits of subject patients. And more information is needed about the 2 doctors assigned to each group.


注：行文语法错误和拼写错误几乎没有。整体结构较为清晰，语言运用个人感觉也很到位也很简练。表达方面因为我个人水平问题暂不加以评论，呵呵。个人感觉是篇挺成功的argu。

[M1]应该用is



[M2]第一次读过感觉有些绝对，不过仔细想想似乎也不是不可，个人认为语气应委婉些。



[M3]个人觉得原文中作者给出的是“患者应被建议服用抗生素”。这里忽略了建议，感觉有些强硬，与原文意思不很相符。




[M4]因为是建议患者服用，患者可以因为自己的经济状况拒绝而采用其他治疗方式。因此这个例子不是很有力。

caiyunjiaoUID：2774098

14# fanyue3014568
caiyunjiao

In this argument, the arguer concludes that all patientswho have muscle strain would be suggested to take antibiotics as subsidiarytreatment. To bolster the assertion the arguer states a study of ①twopatients being treated for muscle injuries, one of the grouptreated by Dr.Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, ②tookantibiotics regularly through their treatment whilethe other were given sugar pills by a general physician Dr. Alton. The arguerclaims that average recuperation time of the patients in the first group was 40percent quicker than typically expected while of the second was not clearlyreduced. Nevertheless, although the conclusion sounds indeed reasonable atfirst thought, several logical flaws may seriously undermine the argument.

First of all, the information of the study provided by③ arguer(the aruguer) is insufficient to reach theconclusion. Never does the arguer concerning(is thearguer concerned with) thedifferences between two groups' patients(感觉有些chinese-english,写成individuals in the two groups可能稍好). For example, the arguer offers no information about whether therelative severity of these injures are similar or the health condition betweentwo groups are parallel. We cannot accept the conclusion before the arguercould provide details about patients.

Secondly, the arguer mentions that the two groups were treated respectively byDr. Newland and Dr. Alton. Perhaps the measures in treatment are differentbetween two doctors for the reason that the first specializes in sportsmedicine ⑥but(but强转折，但这里你要表达的是对比的意思，不太合适) the second is a general physician. It is common sense that adoctor major in sports medicine has better skills in treating muscle strainthan a general physician; a fact that may cause the first group's recuperationtime was(细节问题,cause … to be) quicker than the secondgroup's(改成that of the second group可能更好一些). It Is entirely possible that the treating place and season arenot same that raise the divergence in recuperation time. More contents shouldbe given to support the study.

Finally, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if weignore the differences between patients and doctors, was the survey limited toa certain city or geographic region? Were the survey respondents forthright andrepresentative? Moreover, even though antibiotics do contribute to recuperationof muscle strain, is it detrimental to other respects in people's health?
⑨Therefore, until these questions are answered, it is impossible toassess the validity and reliability of the conclusion.(这段在文章中的作用是什么？如果是总结，为什么要和最后一段分开)

To sum up, the conclusion lack credibility because the evidence cited in theanalysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. Tostrengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provideus more evidence concerning the survey. To better evaluate thearguments, we would need more information regarding the two doctors, patientsin the survey, and the whole function of antibiotics.
恩，文章的逻辑层次不错，层层让步，显得思维严谨。
优点不少，缺点不多，只说我认为可以改进的地方：
1.
需要注重细节。在主谓一致，介词使用，以及英文的习惯表达上有些细节问题。前两个通过总结不难克服；习惯表达方面，切忌在从中文提纲过渡到英文的时候死板翻译。
2.
有些模板化的句子，我认为最好是改写之后再用，以避免雷同。
3.
另外我有个疑问。提纲中前两个都是在列举他因，这样一来同类型的错误是否写得过多，导致文章的变化不足。我在写作过程中也有这样的问题，希望可以讨论一下。
总体来说很好。向老蔡学习！

1、
1、失误，马虎了；
2、
2、哪里有问题没看出来啊……
3、
3、奇怪，我的原文就是 by the arguer 怎么传上去就变了……
4、
4、感谢！我就这方面好犯错误
5、
5、写到这时我有感觉，但想不起来换成哪种了
6、
6、太仔细了！强！我从没注意过这点，都是靠所谓的语感，以后多指教啊！
7、
7、其实我根本不知道这个词组……哎，基础太差，我英语真的不好
8、
8、有道理，以后注意
9、
9、上传后格式变了，这个和前面那个是一段的
10、       10、      这个我不知道怎么了，是读起来不顺？

caiyunjiaoUID：2774098

3# caiyunjiao
按照组长的批改 修改以后的：

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appearedin a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected thatsecondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severemuscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of astudy of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treatedfor muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sportsmedicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Theirrecuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected.Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a generalphysician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they weretaking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantlyreduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would bewell advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."
WORDS: 437
TIME: 01:58:33
DATE: 2010/5/29 星期六 11:07:21

1、研究信息不够，恢复时间差异可能由其他因素引起。如两组人患病前的身体健康状况是否相同，肌肉损伤的严重程度是否一样，参与调查时已患病时间是否一样等
2、即使样本一样，医生不一样。可能两个医生的医疗方法不一样，治疗的地点和季节也不一样，医术好坏不同，如第一个医生是专攻运动医学而第二个是综合医生。
3、急于概括。即使医生水平方法也一样，这次实验对象能否代表所有的肌肉损伤患者是有待研究的。其次虽然抗生素有助于康复，但没有提供它是否对患者有其他方面的副作用。

In this argument, the arguer concludes thatall patients who have muscle strain would be suggested to take antibiotics assubsidiary treatment. To bolster the assertion the arguer states a study of twogroups of patients being treated for muscle injuries, one of the group treatedby Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibioticsregularly throughout their treatment while the other were given sugar pills bya general physician Dr. Alton. The arguer claims that average recuperation timeof the patients in the first group was 40 percent quicker than typicallyexpected while of the second was not clearly reduced. Nevertheless, althoughthe conclusion sounds indeed reasonable at first thought, several logical flawsmay seriously undermine the argument.

First of all, the information of the studyprovided by the arguer is insufficient to reach the conclusion. Never does thearguer concerning the differences between individuals in the two groups. Forexample, the arguer offers no information about whether the relative severityof these injures are similar or the health condition between two groups areparallel. We cannot accept the conclusion before the arguer could providedetails about patients.

Secondly, the arguer mentions that the twogroups were treated respectively by Dr. Newland and Dr. Alton. Perhaps themeasures in treatment are different between two doctors for the reason that thefirst specializes in sports medicine while the second is a general physician.It is common sense that a doctor major in sports medicine has better skills intreating muscle strain than a general physician, a fact that may cause the firstgroup's recuperation time to be quicker than that of the second group. It isentirely possible that the treating place and season are not same that raisethe divergence in recuperation time. More contents should be given to supportthe study.

Finally, the author commits a fallacy ofhasty generalization. Even if we ignore the differences between patients anddoctors, was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region? Werethe survey respondents forthright and representative? Moreover, even thoughantibiotics do contribute to recuperation of muscle strain, is it detrimentalto other respects in people's health? Therefore, until these questions areanswered, it is impossible to assess the validity and reliability of theconclusion.

To sum up, the conclusion lack credibilitybecause the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to whatthe arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have toprovide us more evidence concerning the survey. To better evaluate thearguments, we would need more information regarding the two doctors, patientsin the survey, and the whole function of antibiotics.