argument98 恳请指教

xiaoxiao0524UID: 172512

The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals.
'In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, a concentrated solution of Nadasept killed 40 percent more bacteria than the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During a subsequent test of Nadasept at our hospital in Saluda, that hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection than did any of the other hospitals in our group. Therefore, to prevent serious patient infections, we should supply Nadasept at all hand washing stations throughout our hospital system.'

In this argument, the arguer concludes that in order to prevent serious patient infections, all hand washing stations should supply Nadasept. Although the arguer points out two seemingly convincing evidences, they are in fact not convincing.

First of all, the arguer's conclusion was partly based on a study that a concentrated solution of Nadasept killed 40 percent more bacteria than the liquid hand soaps current used in their hospital. However, the detail of the study is vague and unconvincing. As we know, only at the suitable temperature and certain concentration, can chemical products have the best effect. We cannot rule out the possibility that the study is conducted at a very high temperate. However, at normal temperature Nadasept killed the same bacterial with the liquid hand soaps or even less bacterial. What ‘s more, we cannot also rule other possibilities that non-concentrated solution of Nadasept is less effective than the soap now used. Both factors should be considered before the arguer makes a sound decision.

In addition, this argument is wakened by the fact that the arguer fails to consider other factors that could cause the fewer patient infection in Saluda. Saluda may be the smallest hospital and has the least patients. Then it is no strange that it will have less patient infection than other hospitals that have more patients. Also the arguer does not point out the sort of Saluda. It is highly possible that Saluda is not a synthetic hospital but specializes in psychological disease, while other hospitals are all synthetic ones and have many kinds of patients. Even if Saluda is the same kind hospital as others, the fewer cases of patient infection may due to its physicians’ higher level than that of other hospitals as well as its nurses’ much more patience than that of others.

Finally, the arguer commits a false of hasty generalization. Granted that Nadasept do be more effective than the soap used and decrease the patient infection, whether it can be used in all hand stations and prevent serious infection is open to doubt. First, it is highly possible that the price of Nadasept is much more expensive than that of the soap now used. And if it is used in all hand stations, their hospitals may not afford such money. Second, there is no evidence to prove that Nadasept can prevent serious infection. It is highly possible that they can only prevent slight infection. Last but not least, whether this soap has any side effect is not pointed out. Maybe using it, some people’s skin will be injured.  

In conclusion, the arguer must resurvey the detail information about two tests and provide enough evidences to prove the effectiveness of Nadasept in killing bacteria, and the possibility that it can apply all the hand stations, then they can apply Nadasept universally in their hospitals.

needleUID: 158900

argument98 恳请指教
The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals.
'In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, a concentrated solution of Nadasept killed 40 percent more bacteria than the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During a subsequent test of Nadasept at our hospital in Saluda, that hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection than did any of the other hospitals in our group. Therefore, to prevent serious patient infections, we should supply Nadasept at all hand washing stations throughout our hospital system.'

In this argument, the arguer concludes that in order to prevent serious patient infections, all hand washing stations [in his/her hospital system，这个不能丢，丢了就扩大范围了] should supply Nadasept[对比一下原文的句子，supply的主语是we，不是stations，改写的不好]. Although the arguer points out two seemingly convincing evidences[这个词是不可数的，不能用two也不能用复数], they are in fact not convincing[重复用词].

First of all, the arguer concludes the conclusion[draw a conclusion] partly based on a study that a concentrated solution of Nadasept killed 40 percent more bacteria than the liquid hand soaps current used in their hospital. However, the detail of the study is vague and unconvincing. As we know, only at the suitable temperature and certain concentration, can chemical products have the best effect. We cannot rule out the possibility that the study is conducted at a very high temperate. However[又转折？], at normal temperature Nadasept killed[might (be able to) kill] the same bacterial[这是说同种的，不是说同数量的] with[as] the liquid hand soaps or even less bacterial. What ‘s[不要用缩写] more, we cannot also[either] rule other possibilities that non-concentrated solution of Nadasept is less effective than the soap now used[这里只说了一个possibility，如何与前面的复数相对应？]. Both factors should be considered before the arguer makes a sound decision.[攻击study有效性，注意到laboratory了么，也可以作为攻击的点。你攻击的浓度问题，似乎说明不了N是否真的有效，因为后面也没有提到使用N的时候的浓度问题。]

In addition, this argument is wakened by the fact that the arguer fails to consider other factors that[连续的同位语从句，挺别扭的] could cause the fewer patient infection in Saluda. Saluda may be the smallest hospital and has the least patients. Then it is no strange that it will have less patient infection than other hospitals that have more patients. Also the arguer does not point out the sort of Saluda. It is highly possible that Saluda is not a synthetic hospital but specializes in psychological disease[进一步说明这些病传染可能性很小就更好了], while other hospitals are all synthetic ones and have many kinds of patients[说明有传染性疾病病人就更好了]. Even if Saluda is the same kind hospital as others, the fewer cases of patient infection may due to its physicians’ higher level than that of other hospitals as well as its nurses’ much more patience than that of others.[没有总结。他因找的还是不错的，感觉规模小的那个可以简略一点，因为我个人感觉更要的他因还有卫生水平，其他消毒设施的使用等。医院类型的他因找得很好，要是能写的再精炼而透彻点，就更好了。]

Finally, the arguer commits a false of hasty generalization. Granted that Nadasept do be [这种强调……我不太拿得准对不对。不过即便是对的，是不是也应是does?] more effective than the soap used and decrease the patient infection, whether it can be used in all hand stations and prevent serious infection is open to doubt. First, it is highly possible that the price of Nadasept is much more expensive than that of the soap now used[这里说到价格，那么实际反驳的是建议可行性，前面总气的句子就说得不太好。不是表示N自身能否被supplied，不应说whether N can…]. And if it is used in all hand stations, their hospitals may not afford such money[afford it][这个句子写得不够好，应当说明如果很贵则支付不起]. Second, there is no evidence to prove that Nadasept can prevent serious infection. It is highly possible that they can only prevent slight infection[写的稍微简略了一点，把整段开头的套话减少点，这里增加点]. Last but not least, whether this soap has any side effect is not pointed out. Maybe using it, some people’s skin will be injured[后两点应该和第一点互换位置，在N的确有效的前提下在讨论价格问题。]. [没有总结]

In conclusion, the arguer must resurvey the detail[ed] information about two tests[two tests?哪里来的？] and provide enough evidences[单数] to prove the effectiveness of Nadasept in killing bacteria, and the possibility that it can [被动]apply [be applied to] all the hand stations, then they can apply Nadasept universally in their hospitals.[最后两个半句写的重复而罗嗦。]

[整体而言，是一篇不错的Argument。细节上还有一些需要改进的地方，逻辑上还是比较清楚的。也希望多参加互改:)
加油！]

xiaoxiao0524UID: 172512

谢谢needle 了
真的是好多错误阿，平时都没注意the same as evidence 的单复数问题等等吧
就是每段结尾要总结我是一直做不到，issue 也是如此，常常举完例子或列了几点不知道怎么总结了

buggodUID: 164979

本来想再帮帮忙,结果needle 抢了,
呵呵， 我不敢了

xiaoxiao0524UID: 172512

buggod:
你不是今天考试吗？考的怎么样？

noopiaUID: 170278

The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals.
'In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, a concentrated solution of Nadasept killed 40 percent more bacteria than the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During a subsequent test of Nadasept at our hospital in Saluda, that hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection than did any of the other hospitals in our group. Therefore, to prevent serious patient infections, we should supply Nadasept at all hand washing stations throughout our hospital system.'

In this argument, the arguer concludes that in order to prevent serious patient infections, all hand washing stations [in his/her hospital system，这个不能丢，丢了就扩大范围了] should supply Nadasept[对比一下原文的句子，supply的主语是we，不是stations，改写的不好]. Although the arguer points out two seemingly convincing evidences[这个词是不可数的，不能用two也不能用复数], they are in fact not convincing[重复用词].

First of all, the arguer concludes the conclusion[draw a conclusion] partly based on a study that a concentrated solution of Nadasept killed 40 percent more bacteria than the liquid hand soaps current used in their hospital. However, the detail of the study is vague and unconvincing. As we know, only at the suitable temperature and certain concentration, can chemical products have the best effect. We cannot rule out the possibility that the study is conducted at a very high temperate. However[又转折？], at normal temperature Nadasept killed[might (be able to) kill] the same bacterial[这是说同种的，不是说同数量的] with[as] the liquid hand soaps or even less bacterial. What ‘s[不要用缩写] more, we cannot also[either] rule other possibilities that non-concentrated solution of Nadasept is less effective than the soap now used[这里只说了一个possibility，如何与前面的复数相对应？]{我觉得这个没什么问题，因为有其它的可能性存在，这种可能性完全可以用复数。}. Both factors should be considered before the arguer makes a sound decision.[攻击study有效性，注意到laboratory了么，也可以作为攻击的点。你攻击的浓度问题，似乎说明不了N是否真的有效，因为后面也没有提到使用N的时候的浓度问题。]{我的意见也是从laboratory出发，不过我想强调的是，在攻击的时候，最好能够找到大的错误，也就是宏观上的错误，比如说这里的laboratory就比你所找的temperature和concentration宏观的多，这样一来，攻击角度一下子就宽了，更容易进行攻击，会也好说了。}

In addition, this argument is wakened{weakened} by the fact that the arguer fails to consider other factors that[连续的同位语从句，挺别扭的]{干脆就把weaken放到段末，作为总结，前面用个简单一点的句子。} could cause the fewer patient infection in Saluda. Saluda may be the smallest hospital and has the least patients. Then it is no{not} strange that it will have less patient infection than other hospitals that have more patients. Also the arguer does not point out the sort of Saluda. It is highly possible that Saluda is not a synthetic hospital but specializes in psychological disease[进一步说明这些病传染可能性很小就更好了], while other hospitals are all synthetic ones and have many kinds of patients[说明有传染性疾病病人就更好了]. Even if Saluda is the same kind hospital as others, the fewer cases of patient infection may due to its physicians’ higher level than that of other hospitals as well as its nurses’ much more patience than that of others.[没有总结。他因找的还是不错的，感觉规模小的那个可以简略一点，因为我个人感觉更要的他因还有卫生水平，其他消毒设施的使用等。医院类型的他因找得很好，要是能写的再精炼而透彻点，就更好了。] {医院类型的提出挺特别的，我觉得值得进一步说明，不过似乎在用词上有难度。}

Finally, the arguer commits a false of hasty generalization. Granted that Nadasept do be [这种强调……我不太拿得准对不对。不过即便是对的，是不是也应是does?] more effective than the soap used and decrease the patient infection, whether it can be used in all hand stations and prevent serious infection is open to doubt. First, it is highly possible that the price of Nadasept is much more expensive than that of the soap now used[这里说到价格，那么实际反驳的是建议可行性，前面总气的句子就说得不太好。不是表示N自身能否被supplied，不应说whether N can…]{我觉得这点放在这边无妨}. And if it is used in all hand stations, their hospitals may not afford such money[afford it][这个句子写得不够好，应当说明如果很贵则支付不起]. Second, there is no evidence to prove that Nadasept can prevent serious infection. It is highly possible that they can only prevent slight infection[写的稍微简略了一点，把整段开头的套话减少点，这里增加点]{我必要深入解释一下}. Last but not least, whether this soap has any side effect is not pointed out. Maybe using it, some people’s skin will be injured[后两点应该和第一点互换位置，在N的确有效的前提下在讨论价格问题。]. [没有总结]

In conclusion, the arguer must resurvey the detail[ed] information about two tests[two tests?哪里来的？] and provide enough evidences[单数] to prove the effectiveness of Nadasept in killing bacteria, and the possibility that it can [被动]apply [be applied to] all the hand stations, then they can apply Nadasept universally in their hospitals.[最后两个半句写的重复而罗嗦。]


{needle改的真细致，相信你已经受益匪浅，我想说点我备考中的想法：
首先，最后一段我都是套话，开头结尾在两分钟之内完成（不包括restate结论，我只restate结论），我希望能多留时间给Body段，我觉得值得。虽然needle说你的结尾罗嗦，写得并不好，相信你也是花了至少一分半钟的。这段短短的实际，可以写充分一个构思好的possibility，所以我毅然决然的放弃了结尾的切题。
第二，我觉得你写得不够深入，文中至少有两个可能性你没细说，我觉得有必要细说一下。哪怕多说一句话，也能加强你的驳斥。
第三，就是我在B1后说的，抓住宏观的错误，相对好分析。
相信有经过几日的修炼，你的水平有提高了，也许已经没有我所提到的这些问题了}

{在needle的基础上，我的批改显得有些鸡肋，真的是很抱歉。希望能够帮到你的忙，哪怕只有一点点。}