argument51 (机经) 和issue一起完成的，谢谢大家！

chenxgUID: 183868

Argument51: 345 words   30 minutes
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 argument draw the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment based on a study of group of patients. However, the study on effectiveness of antibiotics is groundless. I find the argument unreasonable on several grounds.

Fist of all, the newsletter provides no evidence that whether two groups of patients have the same situation in muscle strain. Probably patients of the first group have more severe injuries than those of the second group. Moreover, the argument does not mention whether patients of the first group have the secondary infections or not. It is possible that patients of the first group have the secondary infections, however it does not happen for patients of the second group. Therefore, it would need detailed information about two groups of patients.

Additionally, even assuming that the two groups of patients have the same situation in muscle strain, the argument fails to assure that doctors who treat for two groups of patients have the same ability of dealing with the patients. As the argument mentioned, the first doctor specializes in sport injury, however the second doctor is a general physician. Therefore it is possible that there exist a huge difference in dealing with muscle strain for doctors. As the matter, it generated the huge difference in recuperation time.

Finally, even if the situation about patient and doctors who treat for two groups of patients are the same, the argument provides no evidence that whether the sugar pills have negative effects to patients' recovery or not. Maybe in sugar pills there are some harmful materials, which prevent muscle strain from recovering. And it is possible there are some effective materials in pills, which contribute to the rapid recovery of the first group patients, not antibiotics works. Consequently, it is necessary to identify the relationship between the antibiotics and treating muscle strain and component of different pills.

In sum, to support the argument it would need detailed information as following: whether two groups of patients have the same level of muscle strain or not; whether doctors who treat for two groups of patients have the same ability of dealing with patients; the exact component in sugar pills and antibiotics.

coweiliangUID: 195905

The argument drawdraws the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment based on a study of group of patients. However, the study on effectiveness of antibiotics is groundless. I find the argument unreasonable on several grounds.However I found the argument ungrounded in the following aspects.

Fist of all, the newsletter provides no evidence that whether two groups of patients have the same physicalsituation in muscle strain. Probably patients of the first group have more severe injuries than those of the second group. Moreover, the argument does not mention whether patients of the first group have the secondary infections or not. It is possible that patients of the first group have the secondary infections, however it does not happen for patients of the second group. Therefore, it would need detailed information about two groups of patients.this paragraph seems not so convincing and not so succinct. The physical differences also includes dissimilar age, sex, living condition , etc

Additionally, even assuming that the two groups of patients have the same situation in muscle strain, the argument fails to assure that doctors who treat for two groups of patients have the same ability of dealing with the patients. As the argument mentioned, the first doctor specializes in sport injury, however the second doctor is a general physician. Therefore it is possible that there exist a huge difference in dealing with muscle strain for doctors. As the matter, it generated the huge difference in recuperation time.

Finally, even if the situation about patient and doctors who treat for two groups of patients are the same, the argument provides no evidence that whether the sugar pills have negative effects to patients' recovery or not. Maybe in sugar pills there are some harmful materials, which prevent muscle strain from recovering. And it is possible there are some effective materials in pills, which contribute to the rapid recovery of the first group patients, not antibiotics works. Consequently, it is necessary to identify the relationship between the antibiotics and treating muscle strain and component of different pills.

In sum,should summarize the flaws first to support the argument it would need detailed information as following: whether two groups of patients have the same level of muscle strain or not; whether doctors who treat for two groups of patients have the same ability of dealing with patients; the exact component in sugar pills and antibiotics.

chenxgUID: 183868

mm，给个总体评价。

alinazhUID: 187151

我先占上，晚上给你把意见发上来。

chenxgUID: 183868

thanks a lots!

alinazhUID: 187151

No.1 argument51 (机经) 和issue一起完成的，谢谢大家！
Argument51: 345 words 30 minutes
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 argument draw the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment based on a study of(two) group(s) of patients. However, the study on effectiveness of antibiotics is groundless. I find the argument unreasonable on several grounds.

Fist of all, the newsletter provides no evidence that whether two groups of patients have the same situation in muscle strain. Probably patients of the first group have more severe injuries than those of the second group. 反了吧，人家文章中说第一组好得快呀？ Moreover, the argument does not mention whether patients of the first group have the secondary infections or not. It is possible that patients of the first group have the secondary infections, however it does not happen for patients of the second group. 你这句话让人家推断应该是第一组好的慢。我觉得意思应该是这样的：文章并没有提供说第二组是不是真的被二次感染了虽然他们没有用抗生素治疗法。可能第二组的病人并没有发生二次感染，他们好的慢的原因可能是别的，比如身体素质等。Therefore, it would need detailed information about two groups of patients.因此文章并没有很好的证明好得慢与没用抗生素有关。 实际上你这段说了两点，moreover之前说的是两组病人有可能原始情况不同，所以无法比较；而moreover之后说的却是，文章缺少治疗时两组情况的详细说明。

Additionally, even assuming that the two groups of patients have the same situation in muscle strain让步很好, the argument fails to assure that doctors who treat for two groups of patients have the same ability应该是治疗方法,与能力无太大关系 of dealing with the patients（except the difference of using the antibiotics treatment）. As the argument mentioned, the first doctor specializes in sport injury, however the second doctor is a general physician.应该在多说一些，比如第一个医生可能更在行等等，说明的篇幅有点少。 Therefore it is possible that there exist a huge difference in dealing with muscle strain for doctors. As the matter, it generated the huge difference in recuperation time.

Finally, even if the situation about patient and doctors who treat for two groups of patients are the same, the argument provides no evidence that whether the sugar pills have negative effects to patients' recovery or not. Maybe in sugar pills there are some harmful materials, which prevent muscle strain from recovering. And it is possible there are some effective materials in pills, which contribute to the rapid recovery of the first group patients第一组并没吃pill呀？？, not antibiotics works. Consequently, it is necessary to identify the relationship between the antibiotics and treating muscle strain and component of different pills.这段的驳论有问题。

In sum, to support the argument it would need detailed information as following: whether two groups of patients have the same level of muscle strain or not; whether doctors who treat for two groups of patients have the same ability of dealing with patients; the exact component in sugar pills and antibiotics.
我喜欢你的层层递进的方法，写得很好，不过我觉得你的逻辑还是有点问题的。而且在你驳论的时候应该把你的证据说的比较详细， 多举几个例子都应该是可以的吧。这些都是我的一些想法，如我理解错了请见谅。

我的两篇最新文章，谢谢！！必回报！！
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=251140
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=251141