糊涂的作业帖～

sophie-zyUID: 2894667

不好意思，前两天有点忙，改晚了，非常不好意思！

夏诺多UID: 2981956

3.5 周六 A 51
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 newsletter recommends patients diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics in the treatment. The author draws the conclusion from an experiment in which patients who take antibiotics heals quicker than the control group. However, the recommendation is lack of convincing support for several aspects.

First of all, there isn't any evidence demonstrating the relationship between secondary infections and muscle strains in the experiment. In fact, the author fail to present most if not all crucial information about the experiment, such as the number of patients in each group, the ratio of men to women, their detailed physical conditions and so on, let alone whether they are diagnosed with second infection. Perhaps many of them do not pick up the secondary infection, or perhaps most of the patients with a secondary infection concentrate in the control group, which may weaken the accuracy of the result.

Secondly, the author assumes that each group treated by different doctors will not affect the preciseness of the experiment. Yet the author presents no evidence to rule out the potential inaccuracy that doctor difference may bring about. It is entirely possible that the doctor of first group who specializes in sports medicine has a better medical skill on muscle strain than the general doctor. Or perhaps the general doctor misuses some medicine with the sugar pills, which plays a counterproductive role.

Last but not the least, even the experiment can reflect that antibiotics can reduce the recuperation time. I still disagree with the recommendation, for it is a common sense that the abuse of antibiotics had a badly side effect on human bodies. In the experiment, the doctor uses antibiotics "regularly". Considering no patient would choose the treatment one the cost of harmful side effect, this kind of recommendation is irresponsible.

In a word, the recommendation is untenable as it stands. To strengthen it the author need to revise the experiment to be more disinterested, and find a way to solve the side effect problem. Anyway, medical recommendation relates to the health of countless patients, thus no carelessness is permitted.

坚韧杀神UID: 2703697

抱歉 之前误改了另一名同学的I170,有点晚了，楼主见谅

zerrUID: 3006555

I170
A51

夏诺多UID: 2981956

15# Adolph.hu.85 作文例子这个问题嘛。。贵在平时积累，看书什么的时候留心点，但鉴于时间不够了。建议你专门将例子分类，每一个类都积累几个，科学啊，教育什么之类的~这也是听别人说的，自己也没用过

夏诺多UID: 2981956

ISSUE17 ISSUE17.doc (33.5 KB, 下载次数: 5)

2011-3-8 08:21:55 上传

下载次数: 5

夏诺多UID: 2981956

argu 7.doc (33 KB, 下载次数: 5)

2011-3-8 22:54:12 上传

下载次数: 5

Adolph.hu.85UID: 2964075

改好了，A-51  水平有限，没该出什么大问题。

zerrUID: 3006555

A7

夏诺多UID: 2981956

A161
In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.

The speaker claims that the respondents in the first survey had not actually present their reading habits. To support this claim, the speaker provides evidence that the record of local libraries shows mystery novel was most frequently borrowed, and the two studies are conducted by the same researchers. The speaker's claim seems plausible, however, neither of these claims strike me as particularly reasonable. The logical defects are as follow.

To begin with, albeit the two studies are conducted by the same researchers, the respondents in the first do not match with the records of the second one. The speaker assumes that both the respondents and the records can represent the citizens of Leeville, but this assumption is unsound. I see no detail data about the respondents, neither the total number nor their personal information. It is entirely possible that the first study was conducted in the campus, where students may prefer classic novels.

Furthermore, the second study cannot reflect the actual reading habits of Leeville. The speaker mistakenly assumes the libraries' records virtually demonstrate the local citizens' reading habits. Yet it is too weak to substantiate the claim by these records. Perhaps most local readers get their reading materials from the internet, whereas the mystery book readers prefer to get the books in the libraries, or perhaps the local libraries is lack of classic novels, so the citizens have to buy their favorite in the bookstore rather than borrow from libraries. Unless the speaker can rule out all these possibilities, I cannot agree with this conclusion.

Last but not the least, the speaker fail to mention the time interval of these two studies. Perhaps the first one was conducted ten years ago, and the later one was conducted last Monday. If it so, then maybe the reading habit of Leeville citizens is changed during this decade, which also means the respondents of the first study did not mispresent their reading habits.

In sum, the speaker does not convince me thus the claim cannot be taken seriously. The author could strengthen the argument with more detailed and justified evidence like the personal information about the respondents, the relationship between library records and reading habits, and the time interval of the two studies.

坚韧杀神UID: 2703697

改完了~细节问题不大，重点看一下段与段之间的让步攻击

卧沙场UID: 3016143

issue 17
ISSUE17 from 卧沙场.doc (35 KB, 下载次数: 1)

2011-3-13 08:30:58 上传

下载次数: 1

from 卧沙场

卧沙场UID: 3016143

a161 by 卧沙场.doc (27 KB, 下载次数: 1)

2011-3-13 08:53:43 上传

下载次数: 1

a161 by 卧沙场