【Flyer杀G作文组】6.22-Argument51-By CC

师大菜菜UID: 2838404

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."

时间: 3hours（间隔）    字数: 510


提纲:
1.
作者没有说明两组病人的情况是否相同，比如，受伤严重程度，身体情况，年龄和性别分布
2.
两组的医生可能给病人会有其他的不同治疗手段
3.
不是所有的病人者适合抗生素, 也不是所有的肌肉拉伤病人都会有二次感染。

In this argument, the author concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics in their treatment in order to heal quickly. To support the conclusion, the author cites a study of two groups of patients. In the study, one group of patients took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment while the other didn’t. As a result, the recuperation time of patients in the former group was reduced but the latter not. Thus, the author reaches his or her conclusion. However, after careful analysis, the argue procedure have several logical flaws which renders it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the final conclusion is based on the study of two groups of patients. Nevertheless, the arguer fails to tell us that the two groups of patients are comparable. As far as I concerned, the author at least fails to take account for follow factors, the severity of injuries, the health condition, and the age and gender distribution of the two groups of patients. It is entirely possible that the two groups of the patients vary in the severities of injuries on average. The difference of recuperation times is just because the severities of injuries of patients in first groups are less severe than in the second groups. And other factors as motioned also have same effect. Therefore, until the author substantiates those factors have been all treated, I don’t think the two groups of patients are comparable.

Even assumed that the two groups are comparable, the author also fails to consider other factors that may lead the different results. From the argument, we can know that the two groups were treated by different doctors. First group by a specialist of sports medicine, while the other by a general physician. Common sense tells us that the specialist of sports medicine would treat the patients more professional. Therefore it is not surprised that the first group of patients healing quickly than the second group. It is very possibly due to the treatment is more effective in first group rather than taking antibiotics. For that matter, without ruling out this probability, the author’s conclusion is unconvinced.

At last, even the author analysis procedure is acceptable, the author’s conclusion all patients with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics is not reasonable. Firstly, not all patients with muscle strain are suitable to taking antibiotics. Maybe, someone is allergic to the antibiotics. In this case, it is a bad idea to advise the patient to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Moreover, the author approves that serious patients with secondary infections should take antibiotic. However, the conclude suggestion is evolved in all patients without excluding less severe patients or the one who never suffer the secondary infections.

To sum up, the argue not only fails to prove the two groups of patients are comparable, but also has not ruled out other factors that may cause the result in the analysis procedure. Moreover, the conclusion is not a wise suggestion since it never considers the particular case of all patients.

感想：
第一篇。 参考了很多模板，看了提纲。
issue只写了一半，明天再贴上来

子啊就带我去UID: 2840509

看运气,偶去年的组员是6个人,偶们3个中国人,对方3个巴基斯坦人队长是巴基斯坦的,很牛逼,很厉害,极有想法.但是另外两个巴基斯坦人就完了,meeting也不来,讨论也不参加,有的时候课都不上万幸最后队长牛,把他们3个人都工作都做了,小组最终成绩90

xwxkxangUID: 2636190

In this argument, the author concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics in their treatment in order to heal (heal 是治愈的意思)quickly. To support the conclusion, the author cites （cite是引用定理，名言之类的吧，这里用present，tell比较好吧）a study of two groups of patients. In the study, one group of patients took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment while the other didn’t. As a result, （逻辑关系不对，没有明显的因果关系）the recuperation time of patients in the former group was reduced but the latter not. Thus, the author reaches his or her conclusion. However, after careful analysis, the argue procedure have several logical flaws which renders it unconvincing as it stands. （这句理解的不是很懂）

To begin with, the final conclusion is based on the study of two groups of patients. Nevertheless,（nevertheless在这里好像不是很好，我觉得用but够了，nevertheless是尽管如此，但是，这里好像没前面的意思） the arguer fails to tell us that the two groups of patients are comparable. As far as I concerned, the author at least （我觉得这个可以不要）fails to take account for （take into account, take account of ）follow factors, the severity of injuries, the health condition（conditions）, and the age and gender distribution of the two groups of patients. It is entirely possible that the two groups of the patients vary in the severities of injuries on average. The difference of recuperation times is just because the severities of injuries of patients in first groups are less severe than in the second groups. And other factors as motioned also have ︿the  same effect. Therefore, until （改为unless）the author substantiates those factors have been all treated, I don’t think the two groups of patients are comparable.

Even assumed that the two groups are comparable, the author also fails to ︿take into consider other factors that may lead the different results. From the argument, we can know that the two groups were treated by different doctors. First group by a specialist of sports medicine, while the other by a general physician. Common sense tells us that the specialist of sports medicine would treat the patients more professional. Therefore it is not surprised that the first group of patients healing quickly than the second group. It is very possibly due to the treatment is more effective in first group rather than taking antibiotics. For that matter, without ruling out this probability, the author’s conclusion is unconvinced.

At last, even the author’s analysis procedure is acceptable, the author’s conclusion ︿that all patients with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics is not reasonable. Firstly, not all patients with muscle strain are suitable to taking antibiotics. Maybe, someone is allergic to the antibiotics. In this case, it is a bad idea to advise the patient to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Moreover, the author approves that serious patients with secondary infections should take antibiotic. However, the conclude suggestion is evolved in all patients without excluding less severe patients or the one who never suffer the secondary infections.

To sum up, the argue not only fails to prove the two groups of patients are comparable, but also has not ruled out other factors that may cause the result in the analysis procedure. Moreover, the conclusion is not a wise suggestion since it never considers the particular case of all patients.

总结：结构较清晰，结尾部分写的蛮好的，语言还不够简洁，有时用词不是很准确
建议：先练习把句子的语言再加强，再增强逻辑和结构的训练

共同加油

师大菜菜UID: 2838404

3# xwxkxang

好的，非常感谢，我要好好吸收一下