【2010-9-29】第一次作业A51

tingsnowyUID: 2739192

字数：525 时间：1小时25分

By citing a study as well as its concrete details, the arguer vouches for a seemingly well-proved deduction that taking antibiotics largely helps those muscle-strain-sufferers. Then, the author concludes that any patients who struggle with muscle strain would be well advised to take the additional treatment of antibiotics into fully account. Nevertheless, logically, I find this argument weak in two aspects - the imprecise study and the hasty conclusion.

As for the study itself, not only the sample, the data, but the consequent deduction, lacks certain kinds of reliability.

First, the arguer fails to provide particulars of the members in each group, which is
identified as the sample-fallacy. Certainly, different (even slightly not the same) conditions of group members, including their injury levels, original physical conditions, and spiritual happiness, could change the results of the study. The possible scenario is, rather than those in the second group, individuals in the first one are younger and physically stronger, with higher spirits, each of which could serve to a faster recuperation. Also, diverse therapeutic surroundings (referring to the climate, treatment equipment, levels of care) are influential. In this regard, perhaps, it is neither antibiotics nor sugar in any standard that chiefly affects, or determines the final conclusion. Instead, other factors in this study do.

Secondly, a distinguishment between doctors undermines the comparison between two groups, for majors of two doctors may result in uncomparable treatments of their respective patients. In the field of muscle strain, Dr. Newland, a specialist in sports medicine might emphasize more on the physical recovery rather than overall body conditions, which otherwise would be more embraced by Dr. Alton, a general physician. As a result rarely can this study become sound enough without rolling out possible influence from doctors’ specialization as well as therapeutic manners,

In the third place, the arguer has wrongly presented an inaccurate study result. Is it not tough to tell which recuperation time is faster - the "on average 40 percent quicker than typically expected" one or the "not significantly reduced" one? And could anyone pick a preference among a host of vague data like this? Both answers end in "NO". In fact, quite possible it is that the reduced recuperation time of the first group, given there is an precise number existing, remains longer than that of the second one.

Besides the poor-described study, a hasty conclusion is drawn through an ill-conceived preoccupation. That is, generally not all the muscle injuries are severe enough to bring about a secondary inflection, accordingly calling for no need of antibiotics, let alone the very fact that many may suffer other ill effects at the very sight of antibiotics. Allergies, adverse side-effects (especially when a patient is a pregnant woman, an infant or an elder), along with the potential ineffectiveness of antibiotics, are worthy of concern.

In sum, the recommendation of adding antibiotics into a muscle-strain-sufferer's treatment is not well supported. To convince me that certain study or a hypothesis prove both the necessity and the sufficiency, the author must first provide clear group information, scientific study procedure, and convincing study conclusion. To better evaluate the recommendation, an overall consideration of antibiotics and further research on its merits and demerits are required.

Luise8891UID: 2906459

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
By citing a study as well as its concrete details, the arguer vouches for a seemingly well-proved deduction that taking antibiotics largely help（helps） those muscle-strain-sufferers(个人觉得这句话后面的从句应该更丰满具体一点，不然让人觉得虎头蛇尾). Then, the article（应该是Arguer） concludes that any patient（patients） who struggles (struggle) with muscle strain in their treatment (数的一致) would be well advised to take the addition of antibiotics into fully account（in their treatment建议放到后面来）. Nevertheless, logically, I find this argument weak in two aspects - the imprecise study and the hasty conclusion.
小结：句式富于变化，小的语法点希望以后注意。
As for the study that the article believes（这句话很别扭）, not only the sample, the data, but the deduction, is fallacious.（个人觉得不要指出别人的study。。。 有错误，而是不足以支撑它的结论，你可以说论证fallacious，不能说他用的证据的来源是错的）

First, the article （arguer）fails to provide particulars of the members in each group, (which is)identified as the sample-fallacy(指代整个句子的话要加Which is). Certainly, different (even slightly not the same) conditions of these group members, including their injury levels, original physical conditions, and environment(前面说的是condition of the members和environment不是一回事), could change(affect the results of) the study. The possible scenario is, rather than those （those patients）in the second group, individuals in the first one are younger and physically stronger, with higher spirits, living in a better surroundings（过于中式化） (with a warmer climate, more advanced treatment facilities, and better-considerate service(care更合适). In this regard, perhaps, it is neither antibiotics nor sugar in any standard that chiefly influences, or determines the final consequence. Instead, other facts （factors）in this study do.
小结：指出study的不充分性。
Secondly, even the sample quality on all sides being verified（不理解）, a distinguishment between doctors undermines the comparison. Just as what is introduced,（累赘）
in the field of muscle strain, Dr. Newland, a specialist in sports medicine could inevitably far overwhelm Dr. Alton, who seems merely a general physician, in both capability and experience. As a result, profession and competency results in diverse conclusion appearance, and hence blind the arguer's judgment towards the study.
（个人觉得不要加入自己的Assumption，哪个更专业什么的，应该说可能病人接受的不同的治疗方案，而使得result值得怀疑）。
In the third place, the deduction of the study itself is wrongly presented, in spite of all the wrongs above.（个人觉得开头应该明确指出具体的逻辑错误,这句话很令人费解）Is it not tough to tell which recuperation time is faster（shorter） - the "on average 40 percent quicker than typically expected" one or the "not significantly reduced" one? And could anyone pick a preference among a host of vague data like this? Both answers end in "NO". In fact, quite possible it is that the reducing(reduced比较的是减少后的时间) recuperation time of the first group, given there is an accurate number（多余）, remains longer than that of the second one.

Besides the poor-described study, the final conclusion remains hasty through an ill-conceived preoccupation. That is, the arguer prematurely posits （the level of ）every muscle strain should be and must be severe.(Arguer 有这样的假定吗？) But the opposite may be true. Generally, not all the muscle injuries are severe enough to bring about a secondary inflection,（又在提出自己的assumption，应该说arguer没有排除这个可能，即每个人的严重程度不一样，有一部分人不一定会有secondary infection） accordingly calling for no need of antibiotics, let alone the very fact that many may suffer side-effect (like allergies)（过敏不是副作用，副作用是吃药后每个人必然会出现的症状和表现，像化疗药可以杀死正常细胞，导致脱发，恶心呕吐等，而过敏不是每个人必然发生的，你应该单列出来） at the very sight of the commendatory antibiotics. Again, alone with its merit, no one could deny the side-effect and ineffectiveness of antibiotics.
这里我觉得应该有条理的列出每一个你认为的可能的原因，而不是揉在一起，这样会显得你的思维不很清晰。
In sum, the recommendation of adding antibiotics into a muscle-strain-sufferer's treatment is not well supported. To convince me that certain study or a hypothesis prove both the necessity and the sufficiency, the author must first provide clear group information, scientific study procedure, and convincing study conclusion. To better evaluate the recommendation, an overall consideration of antibiotics and further research on its merits and demerits are required.
小结：好的地方是句式富于变化，但这样带来一个问题，过度追求句子的复杂，会使自己的弱点暴露得更明显，简单的语法错误，好多累赘的句子成分，有些中式句子的硬套。应该是尽量最求内容的充实。Argument最讲求的是论证和逻辑推理的严密，是哪儿有问题就要明确的指出，不要含糊其词。建议：下次写的时候，尽量把你的要说的内容说通，简单一点但是必须符合英文的阅读习惯的句子，中间可以适当穿插一些有把握的复杂的句子。这样就会更好，而不是全篇都是各种各样的复杂句。加油!!!可以和我交流。

tingsnowyUID: 2739192

By citing a study as well as its concrete details, the arguer vouches for a seemingly well-proved deduction that taking antibiotics largely helps those muscle-strain-sufferers. Then, the author concludes that any patients who struggle with muscle strain would be well advised to take the additional treatment of antibiotics into fully account. Nevertheless, logically, I find this argument weak in two aspects - the imprecise study and the hasty conclusion.

As for the study itself, not only the sample, the data, but the consequent deduction, lacks certain kinds of reliability.

First, the arguer fails to provide particulars of the members in each group, which is
identified as the sample-fallacy. Certainly, different (even slightly not the same) conditions of group members, including their injury levels, original physical conditions, and spiritual happiness, could change the results of the study. The possible scenario is, rather than those in the second group, individuals in the first one are younger and physically stronger, with higher spirits, each of which could serve to a faster recuperation. Also, diverse therapeutic surroundings (referring to the climate, treatment equipment, levels of care) are influential. In this regard, perhaps, it is neither antibiotics nor sugar in any standard that chiefly affects, or determines the final conclusion. Instead, other factors in this study do.

Secondly, a distinguishment between doctors undermines the comparison between two groups, for majors of two doctors may result in uncomparable treatments of their respective patients. In the field of muscle strain, Dr. Newland, a specialist in sports medicine might emphasize more on the physical recovery rather than overall body conditions, which otherwise would be more embraced by Dr. Alton, a general physician. As a result rarely can this study become sound enough without rolling out possible influence from doctors’ specialization as well as therapeutic manners,

In the third place, the arguer has wrongly presented an inaccurate study result. Is it not tough to tell which recuperation time is faster - the "on average 40 percent quicker than typically expected" one or the "not significantly reduced" one? And could anyone pick a preference among a host of vague data like this? Both answers end in "NO". In fact, quite possible it is that the reduced recuperation time of the first group, given there is an precise number existing, remains longer than that of the second one.

Besides the poor-described study, a hasty conclusion is drawn through an ill-conceived preoccupation. That is, generally not all the muscle injuries are severe enough to bring about a secondary inflection, accordingly calling for no need of antibiotics, let alone the very fact that many may suffer other ill effects at the very sight of antibiotics. Allergies, adverse side-effects (especially when a patient is a pregnant woman, an infant or an elder), along with the potential ineffectiveness of antibiotics, are worthy of concern.

In sum, the recommendation of adding antibiotics into a muscle-strain-sufferer's treatment is not well supported. To convince me that certain study or a hypothesis prove both the necessity and the sufficiency, the author must first provide clear group information, scientific study procedure, and convincing study conclusion. To better evaluate the recommendation, an overall consideration of antibiotics and further research on its merits and demerits are required.

ydycgwllUID: 2894737

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

By citing a study as well as its concrete details, the arguer vouches for a seemingly well-proved deduction that taking antibiotics largely helps those muscle-strain-sufferers. Then, the author concludes that any patients who struggle with muscle strain would be well advised to take the additional treatment of antibiotics into fully account. Nevertheless, logically, I find this argument weak in two aspects - the imprecise study and the hasty conclusion.

As for the study itself, not only the sample, the data, but the consequent deduction, lacks certain kinds of reliability.

First, the arguer fails to provide particulars of the members in each group, which is identified as the sample-fallacy. Certainly, different (even slightly not the same) conditions of group members, including their injury levels, original physical conditions, and spiritual happiness, could change the results of the study. The possible scenario is, rather than those in the second group, individuals in the first one are younger and physically stronger, with higher spirits, each of which could serve to a faster recuperation. Also, diverse therapeutic surroundings (referring to the climate, treatment equipment, levels of care) are influential. In this regard, perhaps, it is neither antibiotics nor sugar in any standard that chiefly affects, or determines the final conclusion. Instead, other factors in this study do.

Secondly, a distinguishment(不存在，distinction) between doctors undermines the comparison between two groups, for majors of two doctors may result incomparable treatments of their respective patients. In the field of muscle strain, Dr. Newland, a specialist in sports medicine might emphasize more on the physical recovery rather than overall body conditions, which otherwise would be more embraced by Dr. Alton, a general physician. As a result rarely can this study become sound enough without rolling out possible influence from doctors’ specialization as well as therapeutic manners,

In the third place, the arguer has wrongly presented an inaccurate study result. Is it not tough to tell which recuperation time is faster - the "on average 40 percent quicker than typically expected" one or the "not significantly reduced" one? And could anyone pick a preference among a host of vague data like this? Both answers end in "NO". In fact, quite possible it is that the reduced recuperation time of the first group, given there is an precise number existing, remains longer than that of the second one.

Besides the poor-described study, a hasty conclusion is drawn through an ill-conceived preoccupation. That is, generally not all the muscle injuries are severe enough to bring about a secondary inflection, accordingly calling for no need of antibiotics, let alone the very fact that many may suffer other ill effects at the very sight of antibiotics. Allergies, adverse side-effects (especially when a patient is a pregnant woman, an infant or an elder), along with the potential ineffectiveness of antibiotics, are worthy of concern.

In sum, the recommendation of adding(prescribing) antibiotics (during the treatment) into a muscle-strain-sufferer's treatment is not well supported. To convince me(最好不要用me，因为你要相信你的论证也是可以读者信服的，可改为To be convincing us) that certain study or a hypothesis prove both the necessity and the sufficiency(研究假设均需有充分必要的证明，是不是改用被动语态？should be proved with…或其他), the author must first provide clear group information, scientific study procedure, and convincing study conclusion. To better evaluate the recommendation, an overall consideration of antibiotics and further research on its merits and demerits are required.
总结：分两大块错误，思路清晰，论证充分，句式富于变化且得当~赞一个！

tingsnowyUID: 2739192

~~