ARGUMENT 51

wagner1985UID: 2838595

    The Real Effect of Secondary Infection

The newsletter asserts the secondary infection may keep some patients from healing after severe muscle strain. To support the assertion, the author cites the result of an experiment that the group of patients who took antidote recuperates more quickly than typically expected and recommend every patient who has been diagnosed with muscle strain should take antidote so as to accelerate their recovery. However, the argument has drawn a series of deficiencies, which made it less persuasive.

First and foremost, the experiment relied on two groups of data which is used to distinguish the real effect of secondary infection. But, clearly, the mentioned hypothesis cannot be tested by such an experiment, because even if we are assured that antidote can be used to alleviate the severity of the infection, the experiment did not distinguish the first and second infections. Perhaps the antidote applied in first group just overcome the negative impact of the first infection and have no influence on the second as the arguer envisioned. In other words, we cannot even determine whether or not the secondary infections itself actually exist in the first group.

Also, the choice of the data is unconvincing about the result itself. The patients in first group collected from the Dr. Newland, a sport medicine specialist. So we can logically conclude that a certain part of the patients (or all of them) in the first group get hurt by the reason of sports. With little basic knowledge of physiology, everybody knows that those sportoholics or athletes are more easily to retrieve healthy body than ordinary people. And it largely confused the real effect of antidote, because people are difficult to precisely subtract the influence of another variable.


Third, the second group of patients is merely brought from the people just get broken in physical but not get muscle injured, which is somewhat far from the issue. Therefore, as mentioned above, the two groups are essentially incomparable and the relationship between them is somewhat vague which is far from the intention of research at the beginning. The recuperate time we can get from the second groups is just the average time of the common injuries instead of muscle injuries.

Finally, to persuade every injured patient to take the antidote may not be a wise decision. As we have analyzed, the comparison is not persuasive enough to verify the effect of antidote. The experiment has not proved antidote will certainly shorten the recovery period. Nor can we exclude the side effect of the antidote.
In conclusion, the recommendation for using antidote is not well supported. To convince me that the proposed treatment is needed to further investigate the correlation between the antidote and the period of recovery. To obtain more information on two groups should be sufficiently classified in a larger and indifferent group in which we cannot find any clear distinction among samples which are related to the problem. Only if the experiment can successfully clarify this point, could we have a more explicit understanding of the whole problem.

师大菜菜UID: 2838404

The Real Effect of Secondary Infection

The newsletter asserts the secondary infection may keep some patients from healing after severe muscle strain. To support the assertion, the author cites the result of an experiment that the group of patients who took antidote recuperates more quickly than typically expected. Therefore, the newsletter(and连接，感觉句子逻辑关系不太明确) recommends every patient who has been diagnosed with muscle strain should take antidote so as to accelerate their recovery. However, the argument has drawn a series of deficiencies, which made it less persuasive.

First and foremost, the experiment relied on two groups of data which is used to distinguish the real effect of secondary infection. But, clearly, the mentioned hypothesis cannot be tested by such an experiment, because even if we are assured that antidote can be used to alleviate the severity of the infection, the experiment did not distinguish the first and second infections.(专业知识不太了解,这样猜测是不是有点风险，建议改成, the argument failed to give a definition of second infections and create a relationship between it and muscle strain. What’s second infection? Does first infection exist? ) Perhaps the antidote applied in first group just overcome the negative impact of the first infection and have no influence on the second as the arguer envisioned. In other words, we cannot even determine whether or not the secondary infections itself actually exist in the first group.



Also, the choice of the data is unconvincing about the result itself. The patients in first group collected from the Dr. Newland, a sport medicine specialist. So we can logically conclude that
a certain part of the patients (or all of them) in the first group get hurt by the reason of sports.(这个有点牵强了吧,文章只是没有明确指出第二组也是muscle strain ,而且似乎又暗含了, 建议写The common sense tell us that a doctor who specializes in sports medicine is more professional than a general physician on treatment) With little basic knowledge of physiology, everybody knows that those sportoholics (这个单词未找到) or athletes are more easily to retrieve healthy body than ordinary people. And it largely confused the real effect of antidote, because people are difficult to precisely subtract the influence of another variable. (简而言之, The author does not inform us about the severity of injuries, physical conditions of the two groups of patients. )


Third, the second group of patients is merely brought from the people just get broken in physical (这个不好说,不太保险) but not get muscle injured, which is somewhat far from the issue. Therefore, as mentioned above, the two groups are essentially incomparable and the relationship between them is somewhat vague which is far from the intention of research at the beginning. The recuperate time we can get from the second groups is just the average time of the common injuries instead of muscle injuries.

Finally, to persuade every injured patient to take the antidote may not be a wise decision. As we have analyzed, the comparison is not persuasive enough to verify the effect of antidote. The experiment has not proved antidote will certainly shorten the recovery period. (这句可作让步, Even if antidote certainly shorten the recovery period, …… 平行了语气会弱一点)Nor can we exclude the side effect of the antidote. (建议,把最后这句稍展开, may have side effect and not suitable to everyone. For example, someone may have
an allergy to it.)

In conclusion, the recommendation for using antidote is not well supported. To convince me that the proposed treatment is needed, the author should(原句句子结构貌似有点乱) further investigate the correlation between the antidote and the period of recovery. To obtain more information on two groups should be sufficiently classified in a larger and indifferent group in which we cannot find any clear distinction among samples which are related to the problem. Only if the experiment can successfully clarify this point, could we have a more explicit understanding of the whole problem.

好的,很不错, 没有多有参考的痕迹, 语言流畅,用词生动
改得不对,请多指教