欢迎拍作文小组 argu 51

crazyjooUID: 2805124

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."
==========================







  The arguer advices all patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To make this recommendation more acceptable, the arguer rules out the result of a relevant study. However, the argument suffers from several flaws.

  Firstly, the argument ignores several other possible possibilities that might contribute to the patients' recuperation. It's very likely that Dr.Newland, whose major is sports medicine cured the patients more effectively and efficiently than Dr.Alton, a general physician could. It's also tempting to think that the health situation of the patients in the first group is much better than that of the second group. Perhaps the second group of patients is diagnosed with much more severer muscle strain than the that of the first group. Or perhaps the sugar pills, though provided no detail information in the argument, might have severe to affect the recuperation. Without ruling these and other possibilities, it is impossible to reach to merit of the argument.

  Secondly, the argument rests on a dubious assumption that secondary infection would certainly happen. And it is for this very assumption that arguer draws a conclusion that antibiotics play an crucial role in the recuperation. However, the argument does not mention any information about the secondary infections. Given the possibility that second infections did not happen among the patients, the credence of the study is open to doubt. And thus, the arguer can not justifiably suggest that antibiotic should be involved in the prescription of muscle strain.

Thirdly, the arguer commits of a fallacy of overgeneralization. Even we accept the arguer's assumption we discuss above, we still have good reasons to doubt the practicality of the arguer's recommendation. A concrete treatment can not be put into market until it has been proven to be a legitimate one. However, a comprehensive and rational evaluation of a treatment needs tons of studies and experiments, not to mention these preliminary results of a study. Perhaps though the ''antibiotic'' treatment can greatly reduce the people's suffering with severe muscle strain, it might potentially has unexpected side effects, such as dizzy, headache, vulnerability to disease and so forth. Simply based on a single plausible experiment, the arguer can not, and should not hastily draw such a significant conclusion. Otherwise, all we see in the medicine store are poison rather than medicine.

In sum, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more logically acceptable, the arguer should point our other factors that might affect the result of the study. Moreover, a more comprehensive scientific analysis about the study is needed to evaluate the merit of the arguer's suggestion.

flyinactUID: 2561013

The arguer advices(advises) all patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To make this recommendation more acceptable, the arguer rules out the result of a relevant study. However, the argument suffers from several flaws.

  Firstly, the argument ignores several other possible(去掉） possibilities that might contribute to the patients' recuperation. It's very likely that Dr.Newland, whose major is sports medicine cured the patients more effectively and efficiently than Dr.Alton, a general physician could. It's also tempting to think that the health situation of the patients in the first group is much better than that of the second group. Perhaps the second group of patients is(was) diagnosed with much more severer（severe) muscle strain than the that of the first group. Or perhaps the sugar pills, though provided no detail(detailed) information in the argument, might have severe to affect(have severely affected) the recuperation. Without ruling(ruling out) these and other possibilities, it is impossible to reach to(to去掉） merit of the argument.

  Secondly, the argument rests on a dubious assumption that secondary infection would certainly happen. And it is for this very assumption that arguer draws a conclusion that antibiotics play an crucial role in the recuperation. However, the argument does not mention any information about the secondary infections. Given the possibility that second infections did not happen among the patients, the credence of the study is open to doubt. And thus, the arguer can not justifiably suggest that antibiotic should be involved in the prescription of muscle strain.

Thirdly, the arguer commits of（去掉） a fallacy of overgeneralization. Even we accept the arguer's assumption we discuss（discussed) above, we still have good reasons to doubt the practicality of the arguer's recommendation. A concrete treatment can not be put into market until it has been proven to be a legitimate one. However, a comprehensive and rational evaluation of a treatment needs tons of studies and experiments, not to mention these preliminary results of a study. Perhaps though the ''antibiotic'' treatment can greatly reduce the people's suffering with severe muscle strain, it might potentially has unexpected side effects, such as dizzy, headache, vulnerability to disease and so forth. Simply based on a single plausible experiment, the arguer can not, and should not hastily draw such a significant conclusion. Otherwise, all we see in the medicine store are poison rather than medicine.

In sum, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more logically acceptable, the arguer should point(point out)  other factors that might affect the result of the study. Moreover, a more comprehensive scientific analysis about the study is needed to evaluate the merit of the arguer's suggestion.

个人觉得，总体逻辑分析层层递进，思路还是很清楚，不错。红色的地方，个人觉得有些不妥，标记出来了。加油！

短发mmUID: 2840480

The arguer advices(?) all patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To make this recommendation more acceptable, the arguer rules out the result of a relevant study. However, the argument suffers from several flaws.(个人建议,开头只要这么一句足以)

  Firstly, the argument ignores several other possible possibilities that might contribute to the patients' recuperation. It's very likely that Dr.Newland(态度阿), whose major is sports medicine cured the patients more effectively and efficiently than Dr.Alton(态度), a general physician could. It's also tempting to think that the health situation of the patients in the first group is much better than that of the second group. Perhaps the second group of patients is diagnosed with much more severer(注意拼写) muscle strain than the that of the first group. Or perhaps the sugar pills, though provided no detail information in the argument, might have severe to affect the recuperation. Without ruling these and other possibilities, it is impossible to reach to merit of the argument.

  Secondly, the argument rests on a dubious assumption that secondary infection would certainly happen. And it is for this very assumption that arguer draws a conclusion that antibiotics play an crucial role in the recuperation. However, the argument does not mention any information about the secondary infections. Given the possibility that second infections did not happen among the patients, the credence of the study is open to doubt(不懂这句话意思). And thus, the arguer can not justifiably suggest that antibiotic should be involved in the prescription of muscle strain.

Thirdly, the arguer commits of a fallacy of overgeneralization. Even we accept the arguer's assumption we discuss above, we still have good reasons to doubt the practicality of the arguer's recommendation. A concrete treatment can not be put into market until it has been proven to be a legitimate one. However, a comprehensive and rational evaluation of a treatment needs tons of studies and experiments, not to mention these preliminary results of a study. Perhaps though the ''antibiotic'' treatment can greatly reduce the people's suffering with severe muscle strain, it might potentially has unexpected side effects, such as dizzy, headache, vulnerability to disease and so forth. Simply based on a single plausible experiment, the arguer can not, and should not hastily draw such a significant conclusion. Otherwise, all we see in the medicine store are poison rather than medicine.

In sum, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more logically acceptable, the arguer should point our other factors that might affect the result of the study. Moreover, a more comprehensive scientific analysis about the study is needed to evaluate the merit of the arguer's suggestion.

我怎么感觉你思路很跳跃阿,看到哪个就写哪个啊?要么遵照作者的逻辑逐句顺序反驳,然后细节反驳,要么就捉住主要的结论先反驳,你这样反驳给人思维很混乱的感觉,可能我说得不对,个人意见

短发mmUID: 2840480

2# flyinact
修改改细节的话会忽略整体的,细节标出来,然后作者自己去发现问题这样对作者好也节省修改者的时间.

flyinactUID: 2561013

2# flyinact  
修改改细节的话会忽略整体的,细节标出来,然后作者自己去发现问题这样对作者好也节省修改者的时间.
短发mm 发表于 2010-7-6 00:06

有道理：）第一次在论坛上修改，呵呵，希望大家共同进步：）

fchenyanUID: 2804020

欢迎拍作文小组 argu 51
argument51--bycrazy

==========================
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."
==========================







  The arguer advices all patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To make this recommendation more acceptable, the arguer rules out the result of a relevant study. However, the argument suffers from several flaws.

  Firstly, the argument ignores several other possible possibilities that might contribute to the patients' recuperation. It's very likely that Dr.Newland, whose major is sports medicine cured the patients more effectively and efficiently than Dr.Alton, a general physician could. It's also tempting to think that the health situation of the patients in the first group is much better than that of the second group.（你这两个it开始的句子都是在猜测吗？虽然是possibilities，但是对于你的论证貌似没有什么贡献吧） Perhaps the second group of patients is diagnosed with much more severer muscle strain than the that of the first group. Or perhaps the sugar pills, though provided no detail information in the argument, might have severe to affect the recuperation. Without ruling these and other possibilities, it is impossible to reach to merit of the argument.

  Secondly, the argument rests on a dubious assumption that secondary infection would certainly happen. And it is for this very assumption that arguer draws a conclusion that antibiotics play an crucial role in the recuperation. However, the argument does not mention any information about the secondary infections. Given the possibility that second infections did not happen among the patients, the credence of the study is open to doubt. And thus, the arguer can not(这是一个小地方哈，我以前也经常这么写，后来发现应该是cannot建议你也改过来) justifiably suggest that antibiotic should be involved in the prescription of muscle strain.

Thirdly, the arguer commits（这个词后面直接接宾语） of a fallacy of overgeneralization. Even we accept the arguer's assumption we discuss above, we still have good reasons to doubt the practicality of the arguer's recommendation. A concrete treatment can not be put into market until it has been proven to be a legitimate one. However, a comprehensive and rational evaluation of a treatment needs tons of studies and experiments, not to mention these preliminary results of a study. Perhaps though the ''antibiotic'' treatment can greatly reduce the people's suffering with severe muscle strain, it might potentially has unexpected side effects, such as dizzy, headache, vulnerability to disease and so forth. Simply based on a single plausible experiment, the arguer can not, and should not hastily draw such a significant conclusion. Otherwise, all we see in the medicine store are poison rather than medicine.

In sum, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more logically acceptable, the arguer should point our other factors that might affect the result of the study. Moreover, a more comprehensive scientific analysis about the study is needed to evaluate the merit of the arguer's suggestion.（我们应该更加专注于题目的逻辑问题）

短发mmUID: 2840480

6# fchenyan
我们应该更加专注于题目的逻辑问题,这句话作为结尾万能句不错,收下了