Argument 51

MaryWongUID: 2619999

In this analysis, the arguer attempt to convince us that antibiotics should be added to the remedy for patients who suffer from muscle strain. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that some patients who has taken antibiotics recuperated quicker than other muscle strain patients who has just taken sugar pills. However, the evidents cited by the arguer is vague and vulnerable to support what he claims.

In the first place, the arguer choose the sample in which there are only two groups of patients, with no notation of the exact number of patients of each group either. It is reasonable for us to be skeptimism about the validity of the sample chose for the investment.

In the second place, these two groups of patients are assumed by the arguer that their stituations are probably same. But as we know, there is hardly two same patients can be found. Furthermore, the data shows us that the doctors who take charge of the two groups of patients seperately have different background. Then it is unreasonable for arguer to conclude that the differtent result after being treated for muscle injuries results only from the different drug the patients take. It is not impossible for the Dr. Newland who is specializes in sports medicine designing certain special phsic exercises for his patients. We can not make any judge about the function of the antibiotic or any other drug in the treatment. And we are confused about the correlation between the two different doctors' role and two kinds of different treatment’s role in the study. Obviously, the arguer confuse the correlation with cause and makes a realy hasty generation before making a cautious parallel comparition.


As it stands, the conclusion lacks credibility since the arguer does not demonstrate that it is the antibiotic taken by patients that cause the quicker recuperation but not any other factor. Furthermore, to solidify the argument, the arguer would have to select larger sample which can be accept as a valid number to prove the the truly reason of the greater accerlerate of recuperation.

柏拉图的世界UID: 2581296

In this analysis, the arguer attempt to convince us that antibiotics should be added to the remedy for patients who suffer from muscle strain. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that some patients who has taken antibiotics recuperated <quicker>【more quickly】 than other muscle strain patients who has just taken sugar pills. However, the evidents cited by the arguer is vague and vulnerable to support what he claims. In the first place, the arguer choose the sample in which there are only two groups of patients, with no notation of the exact number of patients of each group either. It is reasonable for us to be skeptimism about the validity of the sample chose for the investment.【没有把问题讲透。样本的选取必须足够多（覆盖各个层面）、随机等。】 In the second place, these two groups of patients are assumed by the arguer that their stituations are probably same. But as we know, there is hardly two same patients can be found. Furthermore, the data shows us that the doctors who take charge of the two groups of patients seperately have different background. Then it is unreasonable for arguer to conclude that the differtent result after being treated for muscle injuries results only from the different drug the patients take. It is not impossible for the Dr. Newland who is specializes in sports medicine designing certain special phsic【为什么你写physic总是少个y？囧。而且这里应该是physical】 exercises for his patients. We can not make any judge about the function of the antibiotic or any other drug in the treatment. And we are confused about the correlation between the two different doctors' role and two kinds of different treatment’s role in the study. Obviously, the arguer confuse the correlation with cause and makes a realy hasty generation before making a cautious parallel comparition. As it stands, the conclusion lacks credibility since the arguer does not demonstrate that it is the antibiotic taken by patients that cause the quicker recuperation but not any other factor. Furthermore, to solidify the argument, the arguer would have to select larger sample which can be accept as a valid number to prove the the truly reason of the greater accerlerate of recuperation. To conclude, 套用模板的痕迹严重。 前面的两个论点基本都没有展开。论点没有做的specific和detail的话，基本上就无用甚至是detrimental的。 模板可以借鉴，但一定记得要展开，要把话说透，让老美读得懂。他们通常是直线思维，不说明白他们不认为你对。 还有就是字数太少。

yogurt4UID: 198389

omg 柏拉图同志贴的格式好苗条= =||||||

柏拉图的世界UID: 2581296

3# yogurt4
我用IE看是好的，用Chrome看也是变态的苗条... 搞不懂。这个排版很折腾人。