彼岸 argu 51

banglowUID: 2969783

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:          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2010/12/9 20:24:13

In the medical newsletter, the author claims that once a patient is diagnosed with muscle strain, he/she should be advised to take antibiotics as kind of treatment, based on a contrast study of two groups, and the author believes that the different outcome strongly suggest the proclaim. Although the author build his assumption on a real study, he, however, also makes several logic fallacies.

First of all, the author doesn't take into consideration if there are other situation rather than the intaking of antibotics that lead to the difference in the result. In an other word, if the author does not elimilate other differences, we cannot ensure that the outcome is solely because of antibiotics, not other possible conditions. For example, in the letter the author mentioned that the first group have a doctor, who specializes in sports medicien, for advise, which will of course have a good influence during the treatment. In addition, the author still not tell us whether those patiences are physically similar or have close ability on defending injuries, otherwise, it could be the patiences' natural conditions, not the antibioitcs, that make the final difference. Without pointing these likelihoods and excluding other dissimilarities out, the author cannot conclude that the antibiotics will lead a better result in muscle recuperation.

Secondly, even we admit antibiotics have a positive affect on recuperation, the author cannot further suggest the differences in the result of recuperation is because the medicine keeps those patiences from secondary infections, since no additional information is provided to ensure that the medicine have no affect but reducing secondary infection. For example, if the first group does not even have the possibility to have a secondary infection or the second group have few patiences suffering a secondary infection, then the saying that antibiotics can prevent patiences from infection again during the treatment. In that case, even the author can persuade us the influence of antibiotics during the recuperation, he still cannot make his conclusion sound without pointing other the link between antibiotics and secondary infection.

Thirdly, even assuming antibiotics indeed prevent patiences from secondary infections, the author unfairly make a haste extension that all the patiencs who diagnosed to have muscle strain should take antibiotics for part of treatment. The author does not take into account the other ways, maybe more better and suitable, to deal with the situation. As we know, antibiotics, as a kind of medicine, more or less have a negative influence to patiences' body, which may be the last choice of doctors if all the other methods do not work. So if the patience does not have a serious strain and can totally pick up by himself in several days, would he take an antibiotics? What's more, if the patience have an allergy on those antibiotics and taking any of them will have lead to a more serious situation, then would the doctor advise the patience takeing antibiotics as part of treatment? Therefore, although the author puts his feet down trying to persuade us that all the patiences with muscle strain should take antibiotics, he unfortunately ignore other solutions.

In sum, the author claims that antibiotics should seen as an essential part of treatment for patience with muscle strain, but he commits several mistakes. To further strengthen his claim, he should provide more information about the contrast groups and furthrer consider other solutions.

choupgheadUID: 2969431

    (以后注意预先在word上改正拼写错误和语法错误)
In the medical newsletter, the author claims that once a patient is diagnosed with muscle strain, he/she should be advised to take antibiotics as kind of treatment, based on a contrast study of two groups, and the author believes that the different outcome strongly suggest the proclaim. Although the author build（s） his assumption on a real study, he, however, also makes several logic fallacies.

    First of all, the author doesn't take into consideration if there are other situation（factors，elements） rather than the intaking（intake） of antibiotics that lead to the difference in the result. In another word(in other words), if the author does not eliminate other differences(不地道), we cannot ensure that the outcome is solely because of antibiotics, not other possible conditions. For example, in the letter the author mentioned that the first group have（has） a doctor, who specializes in sports medicine, for advice, which will of course（别太肯定） have a good influence during the treatment. In addition, the author still not tell us whether those patients are physically similar or have close ability on defending injuries, otherwise, it could be the patients' natural conditions, not the antibiotics, that make the final difference. Without pointing these likelihoods and excluding other dissimilarities out, the author cannot conclude that the antibiotics will lead a better result in muscle recuperation.（后半段的长句写的不错）

    Secondly, even we admit antibiotics have a positive effect on recuperation, the author cannot further suggest the differences in the result of recuperation is because the medicine keeps those patients from secondary infections, since no additional information is provided to ensure that the medicine have no affect but reducing secondary infection. For example, if the first group does not even have the possibility to have a secondary infection or the second group have few patients suffering a secondary infection, then the saying that antibiotics can prevent patients from infection again during the treatment. In that case, even the author can persuade us the influence of antibiotics during the recuperation, he still cannot make his conclusion sound without pointing other the link between antibiotics and secondary infection.（第一段说的是抗生素可能不是唯一的控制变量使得第一组的病人好得快，这段说即便抗生素have a positive effect on recuperation，。。。。我觉得抗生素既然有好的影响，就可以在一定程度上被采用，至于它能否抑制二次感染貌似没那么重要，这段的攻击点和最终给出的建议似乎没有太大的逻辑关联，像是单独分离出来的。就好像说：它能治A病，但是不能防止B感染，这对题目中让A病患者服用有什么影响呢？）

    Thirdly, even assuming antibiotics indeed prevent patients from secondary infections, the author unfairly make a haste extension that all the patients who diagnosed to have muscle strain should take antibiotics for part of treatment. The author does not take into account the other ways, maybe more better and suitable, to deal with the situation. As we know, antibiotics, as a kind of medicine, more or less have a negative influence(side effect 副作用) to patients' body, which may be the last choice of doctors if all the other methods do not work. So if the patience does not have a serious（注意，文中只有第一句提到了severe这一词，而后面都没有提到，这是否也是一个重要的程度攻击点呢） strain and can totally pick up by himself in several days, would he take an antibiotics? What's more, if the patience have an allergy on those antibiotics and taking any of them will have led to a more serious situation, then would the doctor advise the patience taking antibiotics as part of treatment? Therefore, although the author puts his feet down trying to persuade us that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics, he unfortunately ignore（常用为因为轻视或蔑视为忽略） other solutions.

    In sum, the author claims that antibiotics should （be）seen as an essential part of treatment for patients with muscle strain, but he commits several mistakes. To further strengthen his claim, he should provide more information about the contrast groups and further consider other solutions.( 这里太抽象了，具体举出几个情况要好的多)

McNeilUID: 2272415

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:          TIME: 00:30:00           DATE: 2010/12/9 20:24:13      In the medical newsletter, the author claims that once a patient is diagnosed  with muscle strain, he/she should be advised to take antibiotics as kind of  treatment,（标点应用逗号以上的） based on a contrast  study of two groups, and the author believes that the different outcome strongly  suggest the proclaim. Although the author build（单三）  his assumption on a real study, he, however, also makes several logic  fallacies.（长短结合的句式，学习了）      First of all, the author doesn't take into consideration if there are other  situation rather than the intaking of antibotics that lead to the difference  in the result. In an other word, if the author does not elimilate（拼写） other differences（指代不太清楚）, we cannot  ensure that the outcome is [url=]solely[/url] because of  antibiotics, not other possible conditions. For example, in the letter the  author mentioned that the first group have a doctor, who specializes in  sports medicine, for advise, which will of course have a good（positive好一些吧） influence during  the treatment. In addition, the author still not tell us whether those  patiences are physically similar or have close ability on defending injuries,  otherwise, it could be the patiences' natural conditions, not the  antibioitcs, that make the final difference. [url=]Without pointing these likelihoods  and excluding other dissimilarities out[/url] , the author  cannot conclude that the antibiotics will lead a better result in muscle  recuperation.      Secondly, even we admit antibiotics have a positive affect on recuperation,  the author cannot further suggest the differences in the result of recuperation is because the  medicine keeps those patiences from secondary infections, since no additional  information is provided to ensure that the medicine have no affect but  reducing secondary infection.（好长的句子，有点问题，我没太看懂，需要请教你） For example, if the first group does not even have the  possibility to have a secondary infection or the second group have few  patiences suffering a secondary infection, then the saying that antibiotics  can prevent patiences from infection again during the treatment. In that  case, even the author can persuade us the influence of antibiotics during the  recuperation, he still cannot make his conclusion sound without pointing  other the link between antibiotics and secondary infection.（我觉得这一块，属于前提，应该最先攻击）      Thirdly, even assuming antibiotics indeed prevent patiences from secondary  infections, the author unfairly make a haste [url=]extension[/url] that all the  patiencs who diagnosed to have muscle strain should take antibiotics for part  of treatment. The author does not take into account the other ways, maybe  more better and suitable, to deal with the situation. As we know,  antibiotics, as a kind of medicine, more or less have a negative influence to  patiences' body, which may be the last choice of doctors if all the other  methods do not work. So if the patience does not have a serious strain and  can totally pick up by himself in several days, would he take an antibiotics?  What's more, if the patience have an allergy （这个小点不错，我忘了攻击了）on those antibiotics and taking any of them will have lead to a  more serious situation, then would the doctor advise the patience takeing  antibiotics as part of treatment? Therefore, although the author puts his feet down  trying to persuade us that all the patiences with muscle strain should take  antibiotics, he unfortunately ignore other solutions.（问句是不是应该尽量不是用呢，我不太清楚，欢迎讨论）      In sum, the author claims that antibiotics should seen as an essential part  of treatment for patience with muscle strain, but he commits several  mistakes. To further strengthen his claim, he should provide more information  about the contrast groups and furthrer consider other solutions.（感觉是不是时间紧张了呢？有点单薄最后）

拼写错误还有一些小的细节问题还是挺多的，下次希望提前处理一下，谢谢
有好几个闪光点很不错，我都自己标记成黄色或者加了下划线了，学习了，继续努力，我水平有限，欢迎讨论