[1010G]8月中旬上海YY作文进阶小组argument51

cant0577UID: 2781482

[1010G]8月中旬上海YY作文进阶小组argument51
周五晚11:00 之前交
AUGMT51
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."

楼上的把自己的I 以WORD 的形式传给楼下的   
次日下午2:00 前   楼上在贴里贴上他人改的作业，
               然后再贴上自改文，根据别人建议修改自己的文


请组员自己在交作业的前一天晚上去占楼。一人占两楼。一楼发自己的作文，和自己的改文。一楼发别人的改文（请注明是改的谁的）。楼下改楼上的，楼上的把自己的稿子和改好的稿子QQ传给楼下的


形式如下

第一楼： 提纲 思路 逻辑树
                  习作
     ···················································
      自己修改的文

第二楼：   楼下帮忙改的文
         指出逻辑，语法上的问题，例子


楼上的把自己的I 以WORD 的形式传给楼下的   
次日下午2:00 前 楼下的把楼上的修改文发给楼上，
               楼上在贴里贴上他人改的作业，
               然后再贴上自改文，根据别人建议修改自己的文


请组员自己在交作业的前一天晚上去占楼。一人占两楼。一楼发自己的作文，和自己的改文。一楼发别人的改文（请注明是改的谁的）。楼下改楼上的，楼上的把自己的稿子和改好的稿子QQ传给楼下的


形式如下

第一楼： 提纲 思路 逻辑树
                  习作
     ···················································
      自己修改的文

第二楼：   楼下帮忙改的文
         指出逻辑，语法上的问题，例子

elvisxiaoUID: 2735076

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The 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."


In this argument, the arguer attempts to prove the correctness of the hypothesis, that subsequent infections may prevent patients suffering from severe muscle strain from curing quickly, according to a study by compelling with two groups of patients. In this case, the arguer come to a conclusion that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics. Maybe it seems compelling at first glance, however, we will realize the irrationality of the arguers' claim after careful consideration.

Firstly, the study does not show adequate persuasiveness. No accurate statistics about patients could not indicate the general application of the result. Maybe only several patients accept the study voluntarily, which absolutely cannot point out that most patients behavior the same reaction. In addition, there are two different doctors to treat the two groups separately. It is most likely that Doctor Newland take an effective measure to treat his patients because of his much experience specializing in sports medicine and require his patients to take some other pills which play a primary role in healing quickly, whereas Doctor Alton has nothing to do except giving sugat pills. Without addressing these problems, the results of the study maybe is worthy doubting. 

Secondly, regardless of the validity and creditability of the study, the arguer also does not mention the backgrounds of patients. Whether are the patients suffering the secondary infections or not and whether are the patients' muscle strain or not? The arguer fail to tell us. Maybe the patients surveyed are those who have only slight muscle strain without the secondary infections. In this case, the hypothesis may remain suspected by doctors continually.

Finally,only grounding on the study, it is ridiculous that the arguer draw the conclusion without consideration. Not all patients are suitable to take antibiotics, there are many differences between patients, such as various ages, gender and so forth. As for a  pregnant woman, maybe antibiotics will have great influence to the future development of infants, which doctors prohibit. And the arguer could not manifest that antibiotics do contribute to heal the muscle strain. Thus, the arguer will not arrive at the conclusion until he or she takes into account these factors.

In sum, we can understand that the arguer wishes this motion would reduce the pain of those patients with severe muscle strain by taking antibiotics, however, the arguer had better provide some cogent evidences to convince us .For example, the arguer should supply more statistics about patients and the same doctor treating them.

cant0577UID: 2781482

身体不适~~晚点补
稻草人 你的我这周仔细改一下外加学习一下哦

elvisxiaoUID: 2735076

额。。。组长
这篇我感觉很烂很烂的。。。
不知怎么最近对argu又有点迷茫了
这篇写了好久好久的  效果也很不好

cant0577UID: 2781482

感觉写的恶烂啊


TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The 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."
WORDS: 448          TIME: 01:12:48          DATE: 2010/6/5 12:59:49

In the argument, the speaker recommends that all patients suffering muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics during the part of their treatment. In order to support his recommend the speaker provides the suspect from doctors that secondary infection may keep some patient from healing quickly, which supported by the results of a study of two groups. It may tempting to agree with the speaker's conclusion, however, taking a second thought, we could find flaws in the process of speaker's support.  

Firstly, the speaker makes assumption that all people may get secondary infections. Yet, for different status of patients' body healthy, we could not make such an absolutely assertion. It is perhaps that children or the old are highly likely to get secondary infections because their   immunity is lower, but the young are less getting secondary infections for their strong immunity. So the assumption for all people taking antibiotics is unreasonable without statistics, which is no mentioned in the argument, about the percentage of people suffering secondary infections.

Secondly, the result of study about the comparison of two groups of patients treated by two doctors lacks to consider other possible alternatives. It is mentioned in the argument that the first group is treated by Dr.Newland who specializes in sports medicine, but the other group is treated by Dr.Alton, a general physician. So the increase of the first group's recuperation may possibly owing to more experienced Dr.Newland who knows how to help patient recover quickly by physical treat. Besides, patients are likely taking some medicines which may help treat muscle strains, but the second group do not take any extra pills. This may influent the speed of recuperation. Furthermore, we also take the body healthy of different people into consideration. It is perhaps that in the first group, most patients are young who have the strong recuperation, but in the second, most patients are old whose recover process is slower.

Thirdly, recommending all patients who suffer muscle strain to take antibiotics is quiet unreasonable. For there are no exactly same two situations, various symptoms exist among patients. Some patients may pregnant, who have pay attention to take pills and she maybe could not take antibiotics. Some patients probably are sensitive to antibiotics, who should not be recommended to take. So without such consideration, speaker should not suggest to take antibiotics during the part of all patients' treatment.

In order to strengthen the persuasion about speaker's recommendation, speaker should provide the percentage of people who may suffer secondary infections, and offer a scientific research, to prove that taking antibiotics can improve the speed of recuperation under the same treats, the same symptoms of patients treated by the same doctors.

cant0577UID: 2781482

In this argument, the arguer attempts to prove the correctness of the hypothesis, that subsequent infections may prevent patients suffering from severe muscle strain from curing quickly 没看懂 prevent from 阻止。。。。, according to a study by compelling with 应该是comparing 吧 two groups of patients. In this case, the arguer comes to a conclusion that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics. Maybe it seems compelling at first glance, however, we will realize the irrationality of the arguers' claim after careful consideration.

Firstly, the study does not show adequate persuasiveness. No accurate statistics about patients could not indicate the general application of the result. Maybe only several patients accept the study voluntarily, which absolutely cannot point out that most patients behavior不是动词 是名词 the same reaction. In addition, there are two different doctors to treat the two groups separately. It is most likely that Doctor Newland takes an effective measure to treat his patients because of his much experience specializing in sports medicine and require his patients to take some other pills which play a primary role in healing quickly, whereas Doctor Alton has nothing to do except giving sugat pills. Without addressing these problems, the results of the study maybe is are worthy doubting. 指出病人的数量，医生上没有可比性

Secondly, regardless of the validity and creditability of the study, the arguer also does not mention the backgrounds of patients. Whether are the patients suffering the secondary infections or not and whether are the patients' muscle strain or not? The arguer fails to tell us. Maybe the patients surveyed are those who have only slight muscle strain without the secondary infections. In this case, the hypothesis may remain suspected by doctors continually.病人的身体状况

Finally, only grounding on the study, it is ridiculous that the arguer draw the conclusion without consideration. Not all patients are suitable to take antibiotics, there are many differences between patients, such as various ages, gender and so forth. As for a pregnant woman, maybe antibiotics will have great influence to the future development of infants, which doctors prohibit. And the arguer could not manifest that antibiotics do contribute to heal the muscle strain. Thus, the arguer will not arrive at the conclusion until he or she takes into account these factors.不是所有病人都适合服用抗生素的

In sum, we can understand that the arguer wishes this motion would reduce the pain of those patients with severe muscle strain by taking antibiotics, however, the arguer had better provide some cogent evidences to convince us .For example, the arguer should supply more statistics about patients and the same doctor treating them.


我觉得这篇A 的主要逻辑错误应该是类比吧，然后即证明假设成立，又以此为根据再建议所有人服用。 恩 我觉得首先应该攻击两个STUDY的类比，医生不同，没有交代病人的背景，数目，是否服用其他药物和采用别的复建方法。然后再攻击那个假设 （study并没有将受到二次感染者和未受感染的人做对比，只是服用药物而并不能说明病人一定不会被感染，而服用糖的也不能说明一定会受到二次感染，作者在这里做了一个错误的假设即认定服用抗生素的一定不会感染而服用糖的一定会二次感染）或者 结论（认为所有人都应该服用，没有考虑到不同人有不同的情况，不是所有人都适合服用的，如孕妇，过敏者等）， 因为我觉得这两个是并行的。不知道这样理解对不对

elvisxiaoUID: 2735076

prevent patients suffering from severe muscle strain from curing quickly

额， 这个是我语言的问题。。。。

那两组实验的对比是肯定要攻击的。我觉得是作者假设了两组人当中都感染啦， 为什么第一组回复快是因为他们服用了抗生素 而第二组没有服用抗生素所以他们恢复慢，从而证明感染会防止病人快速恢复，因为抗生素本身就是治疗感染的，第一组服用了抗生素就排除了感染影响了他们的恢复，而第二组没排除感染的作用。所以作者才根据study 证明了假设的正确，当然这是我们要攻击的。不知道这样理解可不可以。。。

elvisxiaoUID: 2735076

In the argument, the speaker recommends that all patients suffering muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics during the part of their treatment. In order to support his recommend recommendation the speaker provides the suspect名词是嫌疑犯的意思  from doctors that secondary infection may keep some patients from healing quickly, which supported by the results of a study of two groups. It may tempting tempt to agree with the speaker's conclusion, however, taking a second thought, we could find flaws in the process of speaker's support.  

Firstly, the speaker makes assumption that all people may get secondary infections. Yet, for different status of patients' body healthy, we could not make such an absolutely assertion. It is perhaps that children or the old are highly likely to get secondary infections because their   immunity is lower, but the young are less getting secondary infections for their strong immunity. So the assumption for all people taking antibiotics is unreasonable without statistics, which is no mentioned in the argument, about the percentage of people suffering secondary infections.  我觉得作者是假设了 两组人都会被感染 攻击点应该在感染不是影响患者康复的唯一因素

Secondly, the result of study about the comparison of two groups of patients treated by two doctors lacks to consider other possible alternatives. It is mentioned in the argument that the first group is treated by Dr.Newland who specializes in sports medicine, but the other group is treated by Dr.Alton, a general physician. So the increase of the first group's recuperation may possibly owing to is due to  more experienced Dr.Newland who knows how to help patient recover quickly by physical treat. Besides, patients are likely taking some medicines which may help treat muscle strains, but the second group do not take any extra pills. This may influent the speed of recuperation. Furthermore, we also take the body healthy of different people into consideration. It is perhaps that in the first group, most patients are young who have the strong recuperation, but in the second, most patients are old whose recover process is slower.

Thirdly, recommending all patients who suffer muscle strain to take antibiotics is quiet quite unreasonable. For there are no exactly same two situations, various symptoms exist among patients. Some patients may pregnant, who have pay attention to take pills and she maybe could not take antibiotics. Some patients probably are sensitive to antibiotics, who should not be recommended to take. So without such consideration, speaker should not suggest to take antibiotics during the part of all patients' treatment.

In order to strengthen the persuasion about speaker's recommendation, speaker should provide the percentage of people who may suffer secondary infections, and offer a scientific research, to prove that taking antibiotics can improve the speed of recuperation under the same treats, the same symptoms of patients treated by the same doctors.

组长可能忽略了，假设和study 的逻辑关系 作者想通过研究说明感染确实会影响恢复的快慢 因为抗生素可以治疗感染 但是应该也有其他因素影响恢复的快慢
作者只说明了只有这一个原因 觉得这个是暗含的逻辑关系 是应该要攻击的

cant0577UID: 2781482

确实 我在写的时候忽略了 假设和study 的关系
现在我在看的时候，感觉 就像 稻草人说的 作者想通过研究说明感染确实会影响恢复的快慢， 然后攻击点就出现了， 一个是作者假定了 第一组服用抗生素的 一定不会受到二次感染 （没有证据说明服用抗生素就能排除二次感染啊，我继续支持我的观点） 第二组服用糖的 一定会受到二次感染， 这些都是没有事实，数据的假设，二是，就像稻草人说的， 还有其他因素影响恢复。 从而证明这个study 不能证明医生的怀疑是正确的。

西西多小姐UID: 2789387

In the medical newsletter, the author recommends that all patients suffered from muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics as a part of the treatments to avoid the danger of secondary inflections. To support his recommendation, the author cites a medical study of two groups of muscle- injured patients. According to the study, the first group treated by Dr.Newland, a doctor specialized in sports medicine, required to take antibiotics regularly during the treatment, recuperate 40% quicker than the expected time, while the result of the second group, treated by a general physician Dr.Alton without the help of antibiotics is not as satisfying as the first group.
However, close scrutiny reveal that the study accomplished little toward support the author’s conclusion and therefore his commendation is unpersuasive.

First and foremost, the study cited in the news letter is problematic in two respects: on one hand, the author fails to take in to account the possible difference between the two doctors that are relevant to the recuperation time. It is common sense that a doctor’s competence and experience are the key factors in the treatment. In the study mentioned in the newsletter, Dr.Newland is an expert in sport medicine while Dr. Alton as a general physician is entirely possibly not as good at treating muscle- injured patient he is. On the other hand, lacking more specific information about the injured degree of each patient, the author failed to rule out the possibility that the first group is less severely injured and stronger in body. Unless the author can provide substantial evidences that there is barely nuance in general physical conditions and the level of injury of the patients, the conclusion cannot be properly drawn.
        Secondly, the author failed to establish a causal relationship between the study and his conclusion that secondary infection is an impediment to muscle strain patients in terms of recovery. No scientific statistics or evidences demonstrated in the study that the second group of patients suffers from secondary infection, even though not treated with antibiotics. Admittedly, the main function of antibiotics is to treat inflections caused by microorganisms. Using antibiotics in the treatment will effectively prevent the patients from secondary infection. However, it does not mean that patients will 100percent get inflected without use of antibiotics. That is to say, the scant evidences can hardly lead to the claimed cause-and –effect relationship between the study and conclusion
Finally, even if antibiotics are helpful in the muscle strain treatment, it is too naïve for the author to oversimplify that all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics. Needless to say that antibiotics have serious side-effect and is dangerous to those who are allergic to them. It is not necessarily that every patient even those who have little danger of secondary inflection should take antibiotics as part of the treatment.
In sum, the argument is logically flawed in some aspects and unpersuasive. To bolster it the author must provide more information of the study about the two doctors-in –charge and the patients. It is possible that a more accurate medical study in a larger scale are in need to be carried.