agrument51 kito组 谢谢拍砖！

智恩UID: 2160717

51.The following appeared in a medical newsletter. 【总频率23】
"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【恢复】 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 论断前提不一定成立，作者未提供任何证据证明severe muscle strain后一定会出现secondary infections
2 作者引用了一项分组研究但这个证据缺乏说服力
a 没有说明患者的年龄、性别和生理特点
b 专攻运动的医生可能比综合医师在muscle strain方面更有研究，那么可能是他的技术更高是的病人康复期加快了
c 没有说明糖丸的成分，可能它含有的成分对康复不利；研究可能本来是想让糖丸起到安慰剂效应以次证明抗生素的作用
3论断太武断没有考虑到即使抗生素有防止2次感染的作用，但抗生素可能带来副作用，【抗生素最好不要用于儿童；它还可能导致stomch－convulsion，以及organic dysfunction】还有有些人可能对它过敏，这些因素都不考虑，下结论太匆忙了
【正文】
The author of a medical newsletter suggests that in order to prevent patients from secondary infections, it is necessary for patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this suggestion, the author quoted an experiment to demonstrate it. At the first glance, it is reasonable as it stands, however after close scrutiny, I find it logically flawed in a number of respects.

To begin with, the assumption that all patients who suffer muscle strain would have secondary infections is dubious. The author fails to provide any evidence to substantiate this point. If this is the case, unless the author offers information to illustrate the certainty of secondary infections, the author's suggestion is untenable as it stands.

In addition, the experiment the author cited lacks of credibility. Firstly, the author fails to provide information about the age, gender,physical characteristics and the health condition of patients. Perhaps the first group patients are in better health conditions.Without such information, it is unconvincing for us to believe the antibiotic has function to prevent secondary infections.Secondly, the different doctors might have effects on the recuperation of patients. The first group doctor specializes in sports medicine and may have more experience and high skills in recuperation than the second group doctor, who is a general physician. If the different medical skills influence the condition of recuperation of patients, the antibiotics' useful function declines.
Finally, no information is offered to tell us the ingredients of the sugar pills, which may prevent the speed of recuperation. It is highly possible that the author desired to utilize the sugar pills to cause placebo effect, but the author fails to claim the ingredients of sugar pills which might affect the patients' recovery. Without considering and ruling out these possibilities listed above, the author's suggestion is indefensible.

Last but not the least, it is hasty and arbitrary to conclude that it is effective for the patients who get severe muscle strain to use antibiotics to get rid of the secondary infections. The author does not take into account the feasibility of the antibiotics usage. Although I am an expert of medicine, common sense informs me that the antibiotic might carry negative effects, such as stomch-convulsion,organic dysfunction and so forth. Moreover it is detrimental for children to use antibiotics. Also perhaps it is supersensitive for people to take antibiotics. Absent of these factors, the author's generation is unconvincing.

In summary, none of the evidence the author quoted lends support to the argument. To strengthen it, the author must provide information to substantiate the inevitable symptom of secondary infections and antibiotics indeed could quicken recuperation. Meanwhile the author has taken account of the negative effect of antibiotics and antibiotics might be allergic to some people.

bunnymz2005UID: 2146758

51.The following appeared in a medical newsletter. 【总频率23】
"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【恢复】 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 论断前提不一定成立，作者未提供任何证据证明severe muscle strain后一定会出现secondary infections
2 作者引用了一项分组研究但这个证据缺乏说服力
a 没有说明患者的年龄、性别和生理特点
b 专攻运动的医生可能比综合医师在muscle strain方面更有研究，那么可能是他的技术更高是的病人康复期加快了
c 没有说明糖丸的成分，可能它含有的成分对康复不利；研究可能本来是想让糖丸起到安慰剂效应以次证明抗生素的作用
3论断太武断没有考虑到即使抗生素有防止2次感染的作用，但抗生素可能带来副作用，【抗生素最好不要用于儿童；它还可能导致stomch－convulsion，以及organic dysfunction（超级专业的，赞一个！）】还有有些人可能对它过敏，这些因素都不考虑，下结论太匆忙了
【正文】
The author of a medical newsletter suggests that in order to prevent patients from secondary infections, it is necessary for patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this suggestion, the author quoted an experiment to demonstrate it. At the first glance, it is reasonable as it stands, however after close scrutiny, I find it logically flawed in a number of respects.

To begin with, the assumption that all patients who suffer muscle strain would have secondary infections is dubious. The author fails to provide any evidence to substantiate this point. If this is the case, unless the author offers information to illustrate the certainty of secondary infections, the author's suggestion is untenable as it stands.（这段批得很牵强，而且文章中这显然不是重点，我个人觉得可以删掉）

In addition, the experiment the author cited lacks of credibility. Firstly, the author fails to provide information about the age, gender, physical characteristics and the health condition of patients. Perhaps the first group patients are in better health conditions. Without such information, it is unconvincing for us to believe （that）the antibiotic has function to prevent secondary infections. Secondly, the different doctors might have effects on the recuperation of patients. The first group doctor（the doctor of the first group who） specializes in sports medicine and（去掉and） may have more experience and high skills in recuperation than the second group doctor, who is a general physician. If the different medical skills influence the condition of recuperation of patients, the antibiotics' useful function declines. (这句话可以不要，写得不清楚这句话，尤其是后半句，什么叫抗生素的有效作用下降？)
Finally, no information is offered to tell us the ingredients of the sugar pills, which may prevent the speed of recuperation（这里想得很好！）. It is highly possible that the author desired to utilize the sugar pills to cause placebo effect, but the author fails to claim the ingredients of sugar pills which might affect the patients' recovery. Without considering and ruling out these possibilities listed above, the author's suggestion is indefensible.

Last but not the least, it is hasty and arbitrary（两个词要一个就好啦！） to conclude that it is effective for the patients who get severe muscle strain to use antibiotics to get rid of the secondary infections. The author does not take into account the feasibility of the antibiotics usage. Although I am an expert of medicine, common sense informs me that the antibiotic might carry negative effects, such as stomch-convulsion,organic dysfunction（非常专业的词，不错，值得学习！） and so forth. Moreover it is detrimental for children to use antibiotics（再详细一点，怎么detrimental了？）. Also perhaps it is supersensitive for people to take antibiotics( Or perhaps some people are allergic to antibiotics). Absent of these factors, the author's generation（generalization) is unconvincing.

In summary, none of the evidence the author quoted lends support to the argument. To strengthen it, the author must provide information to substantiate the inevitable symptom of secondary infections and antibiotics indeed could quicken recuperation. Meanwhile the author has taken account of the negative effect of antibiotics and antibiotics might be allergic to some people(参见上一段，这里allergic 用法有误)
错误找的没问题，思路也比较清晰，但是表达得不是很理想，可能是因为限时吧，加油啊！

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

再次拜读智恩的文章，我觉得有个错误你好像没说
argumemt中关于两组病人康复的时间的数据太模糊的，无法比较
因此不能说第一组病人康复快，更不能假定这是antibiotics的作用
还有Althought I am an expert of medicine.....
你不是学的心理学吗？什么时候成医学专家了？？？？

智恩UID: 2160717

太夸奖我了
你说的那个时间问题的却是可以改的
谢谢jingjing和小花
还有其实我也不知道为什么儿童用抗生素有害，抗生素太厉害了。所以······