Argument51 (532) 请大家拍拍

安婧UID: 2156480

Argument51 (532)

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 mow 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.”

提纲：
1、        Dr.N可能给患者服用了某种其他药物，而Dr.A没有，而这种药物恰恰是治疗严重肌肉扭伤的关键药。
2、        Dr.N在运动医学领域可能比Dr.A水平要高。
3、        样本过小不足以说明问题，并且只有Dr.A的病人成功不足以推广至所有病人。

The author supported the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain by the contrastive experiment between Dr. Newland (Dr. N) and Dr. Alton (Dr. A), whose result is the patients took antibiotics got well faster than who did not take it. But it cannot make me believe the hypothesis, because several things are not known about the experiment.

  First, maybe Dr. N prescript his patients another medicine which is the key drug in treating severe muscle strain, but Dr. A did not. The medical newsletter did not show us the lists of the two doctors, so we do not know the situation of their prescriptions, for example, did they use the same medicine, if they did not use the same medicine, what is the effect of the different drug, and is it the key of the whole prescription. The medical newsletter did not explain the contrastive experiment is standard. Only when the two groups took the same medicine except one took antibiotics but the other took sugar pills, the two groups are comparable, or the contractive experiment is not action. Hence the author can not make me believe the hypothesis through the experiment.

  Second, the medical newsletter said that Dr. N is a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, but Dr. A is a general physician, so Dr. N maybe has a higher level in sports medicine. Perhaps, Dr. N is engaged in sports medicine for several years. He is familiar with the professional knowledge very well, has many successful cases, is good at choose the most effective treating scheme; even is an expert in this area. But this was the first time for Dr. A to treat severe muscle strain. He has no experience and the process he treats the patient is the process he gropes. If the gap between the two doctors is so large, their result can not used to prove the antibiotics’ effect.

  Thirdly, only based on the fact that the average recuperation time of the patients of Dr. N reduced is not enough to say the antibiotics must be used in clinic. On the one hand, the swatch is too small. The patients of Dr. N got well faster maybe are only a coincidence. On the other hand, only Dr. N succeeded by using the antibiotics does not mean all patients took them could get well faster. There are many other factures could effect the healing speed, such as the level of the doctor, the hospital environment, the patient’s ability of spending the key medicine and whether the patient is allergic to the antibiotics. If the patient is allergic, he or she could not touch any antibiotic, or will lead to worse result. So, whether should the subject that use antibiotics to treat severe muscle train be extended to all the patient is still need consideration.

  In sum, the medical newsletter used the contractive experiment between Dr. N and Dr. A cannot prove the hypothesis is right, because the author did not show us a lot of information which is necessary; the two experiments cannot be compared at all. To support the hypothesis, we still need more detailed information.

maylUID: 2162549

1、        Dr. N可能给患者服用了某种其他药物，而Dr. A没有，而这种药物恰恰是治疗严重肌肉扭伤的关键药。
2、        Dr. N在运动医学领域可能比Dr. A水平要高。
3、        样本过小不足以说明问题，并且只有Dr. A的病人成功不足以推广至所有病人。
The author supported the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain by the contrastive experiment between Dr. Newland (Dr. N) and Dr. Alton (Dr. A), whose result is the patients took antibiotics got well faster than who did not take it. But it cannot make me believe the hypothesis, because several things are not known about the experiment.

  First, maybe Dr. N prescript 名词命令 his patients another medicine which is the key drug in treating severe muscle strain, but Dr. A did not. The medical newsletter did not show us the lists of the two doctors, so we do not know the situation of their prescriptions, for example, did they use the same medicine, if they did not use the same medicine, what is the effect of the different drug, and is it the key of the whole prescription. The medical newsletter did not explain the contrastive experiment is standard. Only when the two groups took the same medicine except one took antibiotics but the other took sugar pills, the two groups are comparable, or the contractive experiment is not action. Hence the author can not make me believe the hypothesis through the experiment.

  Second, the medical newsletter said that Dr. N is a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, but Dr. A is a general physician, so Dr. N maybe has a higher level in sports medicine. Perhaps, Dr. N is engaged in sports medicine for several years. He is familiar with the professional knowledge very well, has many successful cases, is good at choose the most effective treating scheme; even is an expert in this area. But this was the first time for Dr. A to treat severe muscle strain. He has no experience and the process he treats the patient is the process he gropes. If the gap between the two doctors is so large, their result can not used to prove the antibiotics’ effect.

  Thirdly, only based on the fact that the average recuperation time of the patients of Dr. N reduced is not enough to say the antibiotics must be used in clinic. On the one hand, the swatch is too small. The patients of Dr. N got well faster maybe are only a coincidence. On the other hand, only Dr. N succeeded by using the antibiotics does not mean all patients took them could get well faster. There are many other factures could effect the healing speed, such as the level of the doctor, the hospital environment, the patient’s ability of spending the key medicine and whether the patient is allergic to the antibiotics. If the patient is allergic, he or she could not touch any antibiotic, or will lead to worse result. So, whether should the subject that use antibiotics to treat severe muscle train be extended to all the patient is still need consideration.

  In sum, the medical newsletter used the contractive experiment between Dr. N and Dr. A cannot prove the hypothesis is right, because the author did not show us a lot of information which is necessary; the two experiments cannot be compared at all. To support the hypothesis, we still need more detailed information.
逻辑错误找的准确，论证过程中例子丰富,但错误主要集中于医疗方面，第三段论证是几个错误一起批，如样本数量，事件偶然性，感觉有点乱

[ Last edited by mayl on 2005-12-20 at 15:58 ]

安婧UID: 2156480

第三段论证觉得只批样本太小没什么力度，批盲目推广又必然牵扯到样本太小的问题。我会再想想的。Thank you!
另外真的有点自然不自然的就写到医疗上面了，自己还不知道呢。大概思维定式已经形成了，现在想问题都是这样想的了。以后会留心的。

再次感谢Mayl！

gtrandUID: 2156108

The author supported the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain by the contrastive experiment between Dr. Newland (Dr. N) and Dr. Alton (Dr. A), whose result is the patients took antibiotics got well faster than who did not take it.有没有感觉句子长得让人喘不过气来？将几个句子揉在一起容易出现错误。如：supported the hypothesis...by the contrastive experiment between，那就是作者在两个医生之间作了一个对比试验的意思，实际是作者引用了两个医生所做的两个试验。再看从句，由于省略不当，几个动词变成同一级别，分不清谁主谁次了。从句如果要完整应该是：whose results showed that the patients who took antibiotics got well faster than those who did not take it. The author argues　一般都用现在时。这样也省事，免得你老担心前后时态不一致。that a hypothesis has been proved that secondary infections may...muscle strain, citing preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients, which showed that... But it cannot make me believe the hypothesis, because several things are not known about the experiment.感觉将题目最后一句话作为其结论似乎更贴近题意

  First, maybe Dr. N prescript his patients another medicine which is the key drug in treating severe muscle strain, but Dr. A did not.前后时态不一致，应该都用过去时。 The medical newsletter diddoes not show us the lists of the two doctors, so we do not know the situation of their prescriptions,. for example, did they use the same medicine,? if they did not use the same medicine, what is the effect of the different drug, and is it the key of the whole prescription.? The medical newsletter did doesnot explain the contrastive experiment is standard.不清楚 Only when the two groups took the same medicine except one took antibiotics but the other took , except that one group also took antibiotics and the other sugar pills, the two groups are comparable, or the contractive experiment is not action the comparasion is not valid.. Hence the author can not make me believe the hypothesis through the experiment.

     这个反驳显得牵强了。两个组的差别应该就在于抗生素与安慰剂之间，不存在是否还有其它药物的问题。倒是两个组的伤情可能有很大差别，可以从这里着手。

  Second, the medical newsletter said that Dr. N is a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, but Dr. A is a general physician, so Dr. N maybe has a higher level in sports medicine. Perhaps, Dr. N is has beenengaged in sports medicine for several years. He is familiar with the professional knowledge very well, has many successful cases, is good at choose the most effective treating scheme; even is an expert in this area. But so many years that he has become an expert in treating muscle strain while this was the first time for Dr. A to treat severe muscle strain. He has no experience and the process he treats the patient is the process he gropes. 重复。前面已经说了是第一次，当然没经验了。If the gap between the two doctors is so large, their result can not beused to prove the antibiotics’ effect.

  Thirdly, only based on the fact that the average recuperation time of the patients of Dr. N reduced is not enough to say the antibiotics must be used in clinic. On the one hand, the swatchsample is too small. The patients of Dr. N got well faster maybe are only a coincidence. 一句中有两个动词。It may be a sheer coincidence that the patients treated by Dr. N got well faster.On the other hand, only Dr. N succeeded by using the antibiotics does not mean all patients took taking or who took them could get well faster. There are many other factures factorscould effect the healing speedeffect, such as the level of the doctor, the hospital environment, the patient’s ability of spending the key medicine and whether the patient is allergic to the antibiotics. If the patient is allergic, he or she could not touch any antibiotic, or will lead to worse result. So, whether should the subject that use antibiotics  to treat severe muscle train be extended to all the patient is still need consideration.more questions need to be answered as for whether the procedure of using antibiotics to treat severe muscle strain could be extended to all patients.

  In sum, the medical newsletter used the contractive experiment between Dr. N and Dr. A cannot prove the hypothesis is right,两个动词。the medical newsletter, which uses...., fails to prove the hypothesis. because the author did not show us a lot of information which is necessary; the two experiments cannot be compared at all. To support the hypothesis, we still need more detailed information.


请参考同样主题的另外一篇：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

[ Last edited by gtrand on 2005-12-20 at 22:10 ]

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

gtrand的语言驾御能力很强啊，佩服．～～～每次评作文都让人很受启发，看你评的作文也可以学到很多东西．

安婧UID: 2156480

感谢gtrand！
希望做个朋友，多瞅瞅我的作文！gtrand扔的这几块砖真的是太好了。我明天会把这个小阿狗改一下再贴上来的。