argument51 G-89-8月2日作业

PEGGYUID: 2102778

Argument 51

提纲：1。两组对比实验的患者身体条件和患病程度不知。基于此得出的结论值得怀疑
2．复原速度可能受其他条件影响。
3．抗生素是否有副作用
4．并不是每个人都会有二次感染，如果发生概率很低，则没有必要推广到普遍。

This argument claims that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain and all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this, the arguer cites a study of two groups of patients, one of which took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment while the other group took sugar pills instead. However, close scrutiny of the study reveals little support to the claim.

First of all, it’s unfair to compare two groups of patients after the study if we don’t know their inherent health condition and to what extent they were hurt. It is equally possible that noe group which took antibiotics is consisted of young men who are vigorous to heal quickly . To the contrary, the other group might be full of old men whose immunity are weak so that they can not heal as quickly as the young generation Perhaps, the second group hurt more badly so they healed slower.. Lacking information about the subjects’ information such as age, job, health condition and to what extent they hurt, the claim that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain is dubious.

In the second place, the arguer assumes that taking antibiotics to prevent secondary infection is the crucial factor that the subjects healed more quickly is due to. However, the arguer overlooks the importance of other conditions that might explain for the result of the study. what should be pointed out is that doctors can control the patients’ recovery partly. As a common sense, the doctor who specializes in sports medicine is more experienced and skillful at treating muscle strain. So without ruling out the different level of doctors, the arguer can’t convince me of his or her conclusion.

Another point worth considering is that whether the antibiotics have side effect. There is no information about other body reflection of antibiotics in this study. Perhaps, people would suffer fever or worse diseases with taking antibiotics. So if the muscle strain is not so serious, people would not need antibiotics. Unless the arguer provides sufficient evidence to prove the safety of antibiotics, the suggestion of the argument is unreasonable.

Last but not least, the arguer assumes that every muscle strain patient will suffer secondary infections. However, the arguer fails to provide more close study about the rate of the patients who suffer secondary infection. As the argument tells us , the report was based on a experiment  of severe muscle strain patients. Supposing, only a small part of the patients is severe muscle strain  patients and even smaller part of them  suffer secondary infection, the suggestion that every patient should take antibiotics is unnecessary.

In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To better assess the suggestion, the arguer should provide more convincing evidence and relevant information: (1)the age and body condition of the two groups of patients.(2)other body reflection of the patients taking antibiotics(3)other changeable factors which influence the result of study (4) further study of the rate of patients who suffer secondary infection.
.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-5 at 02:39 ]

polymathUID: 179557

帮你顶一下！真不好意思！太忙了！刚修改完一篇！这篇如果还没人改明天我一定帮你看！:)

keeyangUID: 2120118

我来该吧，polymath真的够忙的，注意休息！

keeyangUID: 2120118

This argument claims 看起来不习惯，这里就直接用膜板算了that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain and all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this, the arguer cites a study of two groups of patients, one of which took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment while the other group took sugar pills instead. However however出现的没有道理 close scrutiny of the study reveals little support to the claim.

First of all, it’s unfair to compare two groups of patients after the study if we don’t know their inherent health condition and to what extent they were hurt. It is equally possible that noe group which took antibiotics is consisted of consists ofyoung men who are vigorous to heal quickly . To the contrary, the other group might be full of old men whose immunity are weak so that they can not heal as quickly as the young generation Perhaps, the second group hurt more badly so they healed slower.. Lacking information about the subjects’ information such as age, job, health condition and to what extent they hurt, the claim that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain is dubious.

In the second place, the arguer assumes that taking antibiotics to prevent secondary infection is the crucial factor that the subjects healed more quickly is due to. However, the arguer overlooks the importance of other conditions that might explain for the result of the study. what should be pointed out is that doctors can control the patients’ recovery partly. As a common sense, the doctor who specializes in sports medicine is more experienced and skillful at treating muscle strain. So without ruling out the different level of doctors, the arguer can’t convince me of his or her conclusion.

B1和B2不都是再讲这两个组不一定有可比性，没必要分开讲。而且按照先指出明显的错误的原则，两个组医生水平不一样应该先加以驳斥，然后再其他因素，你说呢？

Another point worth considering is that whether the antibiotics have side effect. There is no information about other body reflection of antibiotics in this study. Perhaps, people would suffer fever or worse diseases with taking antibiotics. So if the muscle strain is not so serious, people would not need antibiotics. Unless the arguer provides sufficient evidence to prove the safety of antibiotics, the suggestion of the argument is unreasonable.

Last but not least, the arguer assumes that every muscle strain patient will suffer secondary infections. However, the arguer fails to provide more close study about the rate of the patients who suffer secondary infection. As the argument tells us , the report was based on a experiment  of severe muscle strain patients. Supposing, only a small part of the patients is severe muscle strain  patients and even smaller part of them  suffer secondary infection, the suggestion that every patient should take antibiotics is unnecessary.


In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To better assess 应该用support/strength,因为后面是arguer要怎样怎样，他不是要评价这篇argumentthe suggestion, the arguer should provide more convincing evidence and relevant information: (1)the age and body condition of the two groups of patients.(2)other body reflection of the patients taking antibiotics(3)other changeable factors which influence the result of study (4) further study of the rate of patients who suffer secondary infection. 个人意见：这种列数字的写法很清晰，有的范文也采用，但我觉得不能展示出你对语言的控制能力，相反给我的印象是你不会用连接词来组织文章。

总体感觉蛮好的，语言也到位。就是第一个逻辑错误，我上面已经给提出意见了，共参考。

PEGGYUID: 2102778

今天才看到回帖
看到大家这么相互体贴,负责,很是高兴啊:lol
谢谢楼上的了,小妹这厢有礼了,
;)
当然最让我感动的还是楼主了!
九十度大鞠躬!!!!:kiss:(这里的表情实在太少了,以后我要多多用这个表情,PS,大家都是一家人嘛:$)