大杂烩，有A和I的习作，求拍者互拍者进这里联系

zryzh@qq.comUID: 2741041

"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."

In this argument, the speaker concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain may heal quickly through secondary infections. To support the conclusion, the speaker cites the study of two groups of patients. The speaker also points out that patients were taking antibiotics is better than those were not. Although speaker’s reasoning seems to appealing, we may still find out that this argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

A threshold problem with this argument involves a study itself. The statistical reliability of the study is really questionable. Namely, the speaker provides no evidence that the first group of patients is statistically significant or that the patients were representative of all patients in general. That is to say, this study merely involves the patients who took antibiotics. It is entirely possible that the patients who took antibiotics are not representative of all patients. Lacking the information about the randomness and the size of the study sample, the speaker cannot draw a broader recommendation based on the result.

Another problem that undermines the argument is that the speaker overlooks other factors that result in the fact that secondary infections may keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Therefore all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. According to the speaker’s recommendation, the conclusion that is merely due to the patients being treated by Dr. Newland who specializes in sports medicine. However, in all likelihood, this is not simply the case, perhaps Dr. Newland who is a sports medicine specialist probably adopted more efficient measure to treat the patients. Or perhaps the patients had well health to furbish quickly. Or perhaps the treat project include not only antibiotics but also other drugs. In short in order to conclude that all patients who are diagnose with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. The speaker must rule out all other feasible explanations for the disparity.

Moreover, the speaker unfairly assumes that the patients who took antibiotics the recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. However, the speaker provides no convincing evidence to support the assumption. The mere number cannot necessarily indicate that antibiotics can keep all patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. It is entirely possible that the patients take park in study is stronger than another group. Or perhaps 40 percent quicker is not due to the antibiotics.


Last but no least, the speaker depends on the hasty assumption that it is the most important for recuperation to take antibiotics in the hospital. And the speaker unfairly assumes that the correlation is tantamount to causation. Because the speaker ignores the difference between antibiotics and other drugs.
Without more details about the drug regarding muscle strain, even if all evidence shows that antibiotics can treat the patients with muscle strain. The speak cannot convince me that all patients ought to take antibiotics.

In sum, as it stands the conclusion is wholly unpersuasive. To bolster the conclusion, the author must show more information between antibiotics and muscle strain. Also, the author must point out that what antibiotics effect. To better assess the conclusion we would need more details about antibiotics and more information about muscle strain.

bingbingmaidouUID: 2810130

ARGUMENT处女作  求拍砖
In this argument, the arguer advocates that Old Dairy stockholders should sell their shares and other investors not to purchase stock because the products of this company with a high rate of fat, while arecent survey point out that a high number of people desire to reduce cholesterol from food. The notion seems at first glace to be obvious conclusion, but several logical flaws from the argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is. The critical fallacies are stated as fallows.

First of all, the major problem with this argument is that the arguer does not take into account the credibility of the survy.In this survy, we do not know the number of people who join in this survy, and what is the people`s location, job, habits and even healthy course, which is very important to this survy. We must to admit that people with different history with different action. This is well do in this survy. In addition, the food products of Old Dairy is undoubly high in fat and cholesterol, but there is no saying about people would give up pursue this tasty.

In addition, the arguer assumes that the profits of Old Dairy Industries will be decrease while the low-fat food products abound in many food stores. There is no reasonable words said that people will not to buy the products of Old Dairy Industries, or even hold theis step to that food products. Nervetheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case, and the arguer does not supply any evidence to confirm this assumption.

Finally, the arguer hints that the stockholder and other investors should not to purchase stock in Old Dairy Company because the food products of this company have a high fat and cholesterol. Although this is entirely possible, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. There is no advocate in the newsletter that custorms will forbid to cost in this high fat products, while it means the company may not have the chance to decrease their profits. In other words, it is mean there is no supportable words to provide that the Old Dairy Company would decrease their profits in this atomosphor of healthy importancr. However, the Old Dairy Industries also have other kinds of products, and maybe the profits from that products is the majority of the total profit. Thus, we have no reason to advocate the stockholders and other investors should not to purchase stock in Old Dairy Industries.

As it stands, the conclusion lacks credibility caused by the evidence cited in the analysis does not giving strong support to what the arguer maintain. To make it logically acceptable, we would need more information about people would do as the survey and could pursue healthy than taste. At the same time, the credibility of the survy is also an importance for this conclusion. Thus, the argument would have been more logically acceptable and through while the arguer given factors discussed above.