【U‘r not alone】小组 第一次作业A51

刘文奇UID: 2850560

我是刘文奇同学，这是我的第一次作业。
In the Medical newsletter, a study of two groups of muscle strain patients proved preliminary the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep more patients from healing quickly after muscle strain. The study, however, is not a sound evidence for the hypothesis. Mistakes can be easily found throughout the study.
In the first place, enough information has not been claimed in the study. We have no idea the extent of the muscle injury. If patients in group two injured much heavier than group one, it will be hard to for group two to anticipant the recuperation time than group one. Moreover, the author didn’t tell us the basic information about the patients of two groups, especially the gender and the age, which both are important factors affecting the typical expectancy of recuperation time. Suppose that everyone in the first group is male, but patients in the second group are female,  it will most be the gender not antibiotics that determine the result described above. Besides, the number of patients is also an important factor. If the number of patients of two groups differs much, it will seem much less valid to reach the conclusion.
In the second place, both of the two groups’ patients should be treated by the same doctor. According to the newsletter, in the group one, patients are treated by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine; however, in group two, patients are treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician. During the treatment, Dr. Newland might be much special than Dr. Alton, thus patients treated by Dr. Newland will get more special treatment than patients treated by Dr. Alton. More probably, patients of group one respect much than do in group two.
In the third place, even if the above mistakes  are corrected carefully, the conclusion is still not a convincing one. First, muscle injury is not equivalent to muscle strain. The conclusion reached from muscle injury patients cannot be deduced to patients who have muscle strain problems. Second, even if the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is true based on a scientific study, we still cannot identify the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. It is still a mystery whether a patient will infect for the second time or not. To identify this, we should find out the incidence of patients who have secondary infection and to see if the antibiotics can make patients’ typical expectance of recuperation time
shorter.
To conclude, the conclusion is inappropriate based on the unsound evidence. In order to make the study better, patients who have muscle strain problems are assigned to two groups randomly. Both groups are treated by Dr. Newland or Dr. Alton. Besides, we should evaluate how many patients infected for the second time in both groups.
中文提纲：论断：由于该研究有明显的错误，所以不能证明假设。
                      段二：被调查者的许多信息没有公布。比如：肌肉受伤的程度、年龄、性别以及人数。
                      段三：两组病人应当由同一个医生治疗。
                      段四：肌肉受伤不等于肌肉扭伤。并不是所有的病人都会二次感染。
                      段五：总结。
字数：480
用时：104min

tingsnowyUID: 2739192

Red-语法词法问题
Blue-好词好句
Pink-不理解的地方
Green-小结
Orange-建议

In the Medical newsletter, a study of two groups of muscle strain patients proved preliminary(preliminarily) the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep more patients from healing quickly after muscle strain. The study, however, is not a sound evidence for the hypothesis. Mistakes can be easily found throughout the study.

In the first place, enough information has not been claimed in the study. We have no idea the extent of the muscle injury. If patients in group two injured much heavier than (those in) group one, it will be hard(harder) to(删去) for group two to anticipant(anticipate) the recuperation time than group one.[觉得这里句式有点累赘，是不是可以说受伤程度不同，恢复时间就难以比较。] Moreover, the author didn’t tell us the basic information about the patients of two groups, especially the gender and the age, which both are important factors affecting the typical expectancy of recuperation time. Suppose that everyone in the first group is male, but patients in the second group are female,  it will most be the gender not antibiotics that determine the result described above.[男人就比女人恢复的快么？不见得叭。。。可以说group one的人younger and stronger…之类的，用男女来比较的话有时候没什么说服性。] Besides, the number of patients is also an important factor. If the number of patients of two groups differs much, it will seem much less valid to reach the conclusion.
[小结：通过攻击study，思路很好。但感觉词汇可以再丰富些。]

In the second place, both of the two groups’ patients should be treated by the same doctor. According to the newsletter, in the group one, patients are treated by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine; however, in group two, patients are treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician. During the treatment, Dr. Newland might be much special(specialized会不会更好些？) than Dr. Alton, thus patients treated by Dr. Newland will get more special treatment than patients treated by Dr. Alton. More probably, patients of group one respect much than do in group two.(?)

In the third place, even if the above mistakes  are corrected carefully, the conclusion is still not a convincing one. First, muscle injury is not equivalent to muscle strain. The conclusion reached from muscle injury patients cannot be deduced to patients who have muscle strain problems. [受伤≠扭伤是我没想到的一点]Second, even if the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as
part of their treatment is true(truly) based on a scientific study, we still cannot identify the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. It is still a mystery whether a patient will infect(be infected) for the second time or not. To identify this, we should find out the incidence of patients who have secondary infection and to see if the antibiotics can make patients’ typical expectance of recuperation time shorter.

To conclude, the conclusion is inappropriate based on the unsound evidence. In order to make the study better, patients who have muscle strain problems are(should be) assigned to two groups randomly. Both groups are(should be) treated by Dr. Newland or Dr. Alton.[直接挑明是同一个医生是不是更好？] Besides, we should evaluate how many patients (could be) infected for the second time in both groups.
[好的地方是结构清晰，连接词用的不错。感觉缺点就是要完善语言，有的地方写的比较累赘，考虑下不要总是把副词放在句子最后面。]

刘文奇UID: 2850560

恩，谢谢你的建议~

刘文奇UID: 2850560

一改完成版：

In the Medical newsletter, a study of a group of muscle group proved preliminarily the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep more patients from healing quickly after muscle strain. The study, however, is not a sound evidence for the hypothesis. Mistakes can be easily found throughout the study.
In the first place, enough information has not been offered in the study. We have no idea about the extent of the muscle injury. If patients in group two injured much heavier than group one, it will be harder to predict the recuperation time of group two than of group one. Moreover, the author didn’t tell us the basic information about patients of two groups, especially the gender and the age, which both are important factors affecting the typical recuperation time. Suppose that all group one numbers are men, but patients in group two are women, hence, it will most be the gender not antibiotics that determine the result described above. Besides, the number of patients is also an important factor. If the number of patients of two groups differs much, it will seem hasty to reach the conclusion.
In the second place, both of the two groups’ patients should be treated by the same doctor. According to the newsletter, in the group one, patients are treated by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine; however, in group two, patients are treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician. During the treatment, Dr. Newland will be much special than Dr. Alton, thus patients treated by Dr. Newland will get more special treatment than patients treated by Dr. Alton. More probably, patients of group one might have more confidence concerning the recuperation time than do in group two.
In the third place, even if the above mistakes are corrected carefully, the conclusion is still not a convincing one. First, muscle injury is not equivalent to muscle strain. The conclusion reached from muscle injury patients cannot be deduced to patients who have muscle strain problems. Second, even if the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is truly based on the scientific study, we still cannot identify the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, since it is still a mystery whether a patient will be infected for the second time. To identify this, we should find out the incidence of patients who are infected for the second time and to see if the antibiotics can make patients’ recuperation time shorter.
To conclude, the conclusion is inappropriate based on the unsound evidence. In order to make the study better, patients who have muscle strain problems are assigned to two groups randomly. Both groups should be treated either by Dr. Newland or Dr. Alton. Besides, we should evaluate how many patients could be infected for the second time in both groups.

dreamerdanceUID: 2759402

In the Medical newsletter, the author cited that会更好，因为你下面强调这个是不充分的证据，所以这里加上作者说会更好a study of a group of
(删掉，这是笔误吧)muscle group proved preliminarily the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep more patients from healing quickly after muscle strain. The study, however, is not a sound evidence for the hypothesis. Mistakes can be easily found throughout the study.第一段就说了三次study，不太好，用词单一，最后一次不如换成hypothesis， throughout which，mistakes can be easily found.


In the first place, enough information has not been offered in the study. We have no idea about the extent of the muscle injury. If patients in group two injured much heavier than group one, it will be harder to predict the recuperation time of group two than of group one. Moreover, the author didn’t tell us the basic information about patients of two groups, especially the gender and the age, which both are
(are both ) important factors affecting the typical recuperation time. Suppose (supposing) that all group one numbers are men
(group one are all men), but
（and）patients in group two are women, hence, it will
（用might更好，因为你也不知道性别是不是一定比抗生素影响大）most be mostly the gender not (instead of) antibiotics that determine the result as described above. Besides, the number of patients is also an important factor. If the number of patients of two groups differs much, it will seem too hasty to reach the conclusion.
不知道受伤的程度。病人的基本信息。病人的数量
In the second place, both of the two groups’
of patients should be treated by the same doctor. According to the newsletter, in the （删掉）group one, patients are treated by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine; however, in group two, patients are treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician. During the treatment, Dr. Newland will be much special（specialized） than Dr. Alton, thus patients treated by Dr. Newland will get more special treatment than patients treated by Dr. Alton. More probably, patients of group one might have more confidence concerning the recuperation time than do in（删掉） group two.
病人的医生不同
In the third place, even if the above mistakes are corrected carefully, the conclusion is still not a convincing one. First, muscle injury is not equivalent to muscle strain. The conclusion reached from muscle injury patients cannot be deduced to patients who have muscle strain problems. Second, even if the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment，is truly based on the scientific study （删掉，句子结构很乱）, we still cannot identify the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, since it is still a mystery whether a patient will be infected for the second time 这句才是你第二点的重点啊，为什么说了一堆没用的话却把这句只在最后提出来了？你是要说还不知道是不是所有病人都一定会得二次感染，不如把它提前）. To identify this assertion（注意，this不能单独用来指代，后边一定要加上指代的名词）, we should find out the incidence of patients who are infected for the second time and to see if the antibiotics can make patients’ recuperation time shorter.
受伤不等于扭伤。不知道是不是所有人都一定会得。

To conclude, the conclusion is inappropriate based on the unsound evidence. In order to make the study better, patients who have muscle strain problems are advised to be assigned to（into） two groups randomly. Both groups should be treated either by Dr. Newland or Dr. Alton. Besides, we should evaluate how many patients could be infected for the second time in both groups.

我有一个想法，你既然想到了受伤不等于扭伤（这个观点很新颖），而且提出来了不一定所有人都会有二次感染，那么何不把第三段放到最前面，当做前提论证（请看官方满分范文第一篇）。这样会让你的论证更深刻严谨。
语言有一点小问题，但是不严重，我的修改也不过是使他更地道流畅一点。

我的个人意见，有什么问题qq上交流！

dreamerdanceUID: 2759402

为什么粘上去还是好好的，一发表就格式和颜色都乱了呢？文奇，我用qq给你传过去源文件，你看这个

刘文奇UID: 2850560

二改完成版