【1106G】零散版友作文互改帖（Argument）

蒲若苇UID: 2669670

鉴于很多童鞋并没有参加作文互改小组，却仍想找其它童鞋互改文章，特开此贴，为这些零散版友提供一个改文提高的平台，希望每个参与者都能从中受益。

面向对象：全体版友（尤其是零散版友）
活动时间：即刻至2011年5月7日 （1106GAW考试时间结束）

活动内容：互改作文

活动规则：

1.接龙修改：按楼层由远及近的顺序选择最近一楼的未被修改且具备修改资格的版友习作进行修改，一般是你修改帖的上一楼。不允许随意挑选楼层修改。

2.互改操作：
（1）首先跟帖占一层楼写上“占位改**楼”的字样，但是不急着修改，以防被人占楼；
（2）然后立马将自己的一篇习作跟贴发上来；
（3）第三步才是返回编辑第一个帖子修改别人的文章。
（4）特殊情况：如果目前没有可供修改的文章，请等上一楼贴出来修改。

3.批改要求：认真，仔细，负责

将你要批改的习作粘贴到修改楼中，在原文中修改即可。最好用不同颜色的文字进行修改，从文章的行文结构，逻辑推理，立意正否等方面进行评论，当然，最后请提出你自己的看法和建议。

4.习作要求：

（1）提交前首先自己用Word检查语法及拼写错误，并进行至少一次的全文修改。
（2）为方便他人修改，理解你的立意及行文思路，推荐附上自己列的中文或英文提纲。

5.奖惩措施：

（1）奖：认真及时修改他人习作者，加3~5声望或10~20寄托币。
（2）惩：有以下行为之一者，扣1~2声望或10~15寄托币：

         a.占楼后未在24小时内修改者
         b.只发自己习作未改他人者
         c.不按接龙规则，随意挑选楼层修改者


请参加的版友本着认真的态度改文及上传习作，你的负责才会换回他人的信任和负责！

以上规则参考自江雪版主帖子：
1010G零散版友作文互改帖（Argument）
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1118994-1-1.html

sonicjamUID: 2507839

木有人啊？先占个座吧....求零散互改保5冲6的
咖啡盐 发表于 2010-12-12 12:23

保5冲6。。。姑娘。。。霸气！！！

咖啡盐UID: 2973669

木有人啊？先占个座吧....求零散互改保5冲6的
咖啡盐 发表于 2010-12-12 12:23
保5冲6。。。姑娘。。。霸气！！！

= =我无奈了，今天一上来发现我的号被刷掉了.......ToT.....这是为什么嘞！！！！！！！！！！！

huimieUID: 2578470

先發了，這篇感覺邏輯結構方面有些糾結><
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: 337          TIME: 00:56:54          DATE: 2010/12/30 19:45:50

The argument to take a antibiotics as part of treatment for all patients who  
are diagnosed with muscle strain by making a comparison between two groups  
seems perspicuous and valid.

However, as an indispensible sustain for the argument, the study is open to  
question. It is limited to two groups of patients treated by two particular  
doctors. Since these individuals may all contribute to the study results,  
the generalization drawn was questionable.  It is possible that Dr Newland,  
who specializes in sports medicine, might be more avid in treating muscle  
strain. Does the age, gender and profession of patients reflect the  
demographic features of most people? Were they from a certain geographic or  
cultural region? If not, generalization drawn by the study is questionable.  
Furthermore, life standard of Dr. Alton's patients might not be as good as  
Dr. Newland's, which would prolong their recuperation time. In addition, no  
information was shown that there were no special treatment taken by Dr.  
Newland. Factors like these could explain the study results in another way,  
and could undermine the reliability and generality of the study.

Even if the study results are cogent, the argument is weakened by its  
assumption that it is taking antibiotics regularly that caused the patients'  
recuperation time was 40 percent quicker than average. This assumes a  
correlation amount to a causal relationship, however, with no sufficient  
evidence, such as scientific statistics to prove it.

Another point the argument stresses is that all patients diagnosed with  
muscle strain, however severe they are, should take antibiotics. There is  
absolutely no evidence to prove it. The study only made a comparison among  
patients who suffered from severe muscle strain. How about patients who  
certainly won't get secondary infections?

The argument could provide important information and potentially improve our  
medical condition. However, before any conclusions are drawn about taking  
antibiotics as part of muscle strain treatment, a more comprehensive  
analysis of all elements is essential. Specious confidence in a study and  
antibiotics may be more dangerous than a secondary infection.

ihuaziUID: 2728057

203The following appeared in a newspaper feature story.

"At the small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda, the average length of a patient's stay is two days; at the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville, the average patient stay is six days. Also, the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital. The Saluda hospital has more employees per patient than the hospital in Megaville, and there are few complaints about service at the local hospital. Such data indicate that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals."
参考北美范文写的，求拍。
1．        短的住院时间不代表病人恢复得快，也不代表治疗质量高
2．        Cure rate也不代表治疗质量高
3．        Employee-patient ratio也不代表治疗质量高
4．        Few complaints 不能表明less percentage of complaining
5．        No evidence to support economical
6．        Extends the applicability
The newspaper story concludes that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economic and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. To support this argument, he cites the following comparisons between the Saluda hospital and the Megaville hospital: at the Saluda hospital the average length of a patient’s stay is shorter, the cure rate and the employee-patient ratio are both higher, and the complaints about service are fewer. However, careful consideration to these facts reveals that they fail to justify the author’s conclusion.

In the first place, the author unfairly assuming that a shorter hospital stay indicates a quicker recovery and therefore better treatment quality. However, it is equally possible that the Saluda hospital simply cannot afford to keep patients as long as they need to ensure proper care and recovery. Perhaps the hospital sends patients home prematurely for freeing up beds for new patients. Since the author has failed to rule out other possible explanations for this shorter average stay, I remain unconvinced that the Saluda hospital provides better treatment quality.

In the second place, the mere fact that the rate of cure at the Saluda hospital is higher than at the Megaville hospital proves nothing about the quality of treatment at either hospital. It is entirely possible that the majority of patients at the Saluda hospital are suffering from curable illnesses while most patients at the Megaville hospital are suffering from incurable diseases. Without considering this possibility the author cannot draw any conclusion about the quality of treatment.

In the third place, a higher employee-patient ratio at the Saluda hospital is weak evidence of either better care or greater efficiency. Common sense informs us that it is the competence of the employees rather than the number of them that determines overall quality of treatment. Besides, it is entirely possible that the comparatively lager staff at the Saluda hospital is the result of organizational inefficiency, and that a smaller staff of more effective would provide better treatment.

In the fourth place, the fact that there are fewer complaints about service at the Saluda hospital than at the Megaville hospital proves nothing about quality of treatment. Smaller number does not necessarily means smaller percentage. It is entirely possible that the percentage of patients complaining at the Saluda hospital is higher than at the Megaville hospital. It is also possible that Megaville hospital encourages patient feedback whereas Saluda hospital does not.
In the fifth place, there is no data concerning average expense at each hospital, therefore the author cannot draw the conclusion that treatment in nonprofit hospital is more economical. To prove this conclusion, the author has to provide more data concerning average expense at each hospital.
In the last place, even assuming that the treatment quality at the Saluda hospital is better and more economical, we still cannot extend the conclusion to include all nonprofit and for-profit hospitals. After all, there is only one set of comparable data. To extend the data, we hope the sample is much bigger. That means to acquire more data from more hospitals.
In sum, the facts the author cited provide weak evidence to support the conclusion. There is even no evidence indicating that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical than bigger, for-profit ones. Even assuming that the treatment in Saluda hospital is more economical and of better quality, the author still has made a mistake to extend the applicability to include all hospitals without any persuasive proofs.

ihuaziUID: 2728057

先發了，這篇感覺邏輯結構方面有些糾結><
TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some  
patients from he ...
huimie 发表于 2010-12-30 20:08

The argument to take a（删除） antibiotics as part of treatment for all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain by making a comparison between two groups seems perspicuous and valid.（病句，有语法错误
无法翻译）
However, as an indispensible sustain(动词，改为support) for the argument, the study is open to  question. It is limited to two groups of patients treated by two particular  doctors. Since these individuals may all contribute to the study results,  the generalization drawn was questionable.  It is possible that Dr Newland,  who specializes in sports medicine, might be more avid（换成capable是否好点） in treating muscle  strain. Does the age, gender and profession of patients reflect the  demographic features of most people? Were they from a certain geographic or  cultural region?(这个基本不会和恢复速度有太大关系吧？) If not, generalization drawn by the study is questionable.  
Furthermore, life standard(health condition?) of Dr. Alton's patients might not be as good as  Dr. Newland's, which would prolong their recuperation time. In addition, no  information was（has） shown that there were(is) no special treatment taken by Dr.  Newland. Factors like these could explain the study results in another way,  and could undermine the reliability and generality of the study.
Even if the study results are cogent, the argument is weakened by its（谁的啊？改为the）  assumption that it is taking antibiotics regularly that caused the patients'  recuperation time was 40 percent quicker than average. This assumes a  correlation amount to a causal relationship, however, with no sufficient  evidence, such as scientific statistics to prove it.
Another point the argument stresses is that all patients diagnosed with  muscle strain, however(no matter how) severe they are, should take antibiotics. There is  absolutely no evidence to prove it. The study only made a comparison among  patients who suffered from severe muscle strain. How about patients who  certainly won't get secondary infections?(科技写作一般都用现在时和现在完成时)
The argument could provide important information and potentially improve our  medical condition. However, before any conclusions are drawn about taking  antibiotics as part of muscle strain treatment, a more comprehensive  analysis of all elements is essential. Specious confidence in a study and  antibiotics may be more dangerous than a secondary infection.
(文章还有其他逻辑错误，比如：
前面说的secondary infection的病人才用antibiotics, 结论中却是没有secondary infection 的病人也应该服用antibiotics.可以更充实一些。
文章整体思路不清晰，把逻辑错误都揪在一起说了。）

ihuaziUID: 2728057

先發了，這篇感覺邏輯結構方面有些糾結><
TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some  
patients from he ...
huimie 发表于 2010-12-30 20:08

文章中的逻辑错误有以下几点：
1. Whether the result from the study convincing
1.1 Is sample number big enough? number of patients unknown.
1.2Whether the two groups of patients are comparable? Average age and severity.
2. 递进式论述， Assuming 1 undoubted, the two groups also different in doctor, and sugar pills vs antibiotics. No evidence proves that sugar pills has no negative effect on the treatment.
3. The suggestion is not reasonable. Including those not suffer from secondary infection. Without excluding those allergic to antibiotics.