argument51 w小组作业，请大家帮忙！

calsunnyUID: 2163431

51.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."

---正文
The argument is well-presented, but not completely well-justified. By making a study of two groups, the author advices all muscle strain patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. This argument is not sufficiently supported by the evidence given.

To begin with, the study objects, the two groups of patients in this argument, are quite problematic. The author fails to present the details about the two groups of patients, such as the age, the body conditions, and the extent of their muscle strains. These aspects are so crucial that anyone of them may affect the results of the study. Without the exact information, we may assume that most of patients in the first group are athletes whose ages are from20-30, while the second ones are the old with other illness. If these are in the case, we may draw a conclusion that it is the patients’ reason that is conducive to the quicker healing.  

Obviating the factors of the patients, there may be difference between the two doctors. Firstly, Dr. Newland, the specialist of sports medicine, perhaps is more effective and efficient than Dr. Alton in curing muscle strain with accomplished skills. Even if Dr. Newland is not so efficient, the patients may think so just because they hear that the doctor specializes in sports medicine, which will undoubtedly affect the cure effect. Thirdly, we do not know whether Dr. Newland gives other medicine to the patients besides the antibiotics because it is impossible to use only one kind of medicine for the patients with serious ill. Maybe it is not the antibiotics but this “other medicine” does the work for the cure. Without ruling out the information about the two doctors and what they have done, the argument can be rejected out of hand.

Even if the factor of patients and doctors in the study is sound enough, there are some other problems in this argument. Firstly, the average recuperation is doubtable because it is possible the cure time of one or two patients in the second group are much slower than others, which affects the ultimate results. Actually, these two groups’ patients have not the obvious difference in the course of the recuperation. Secondly, not all patients with severe muscle strain will be infectious, not mention to the second infectious. In this argument, the author fails to provide the exact data to tell us how many patients may be infectious due to the muscle strain. Thirdly, some of patients’ recuperation is quicker than typically expected, while the arguer advises all the patients diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. These are all logic holes in this argument.

In sum, the reasoning behind the advice is illogical. Unless more accurate study and factual information are presented, it would be too rush to make such a suggestion.

calsunnyUID: 2163431

真抱歉，交晚了，网速还特别慢，过一会儿来看大家的作文。

eyemeiUID: 205999

The argument is well-presented, but not completely well-justified. By making a study of two groups, the author advices all muscle strain patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. This argument is not sufficiently supported by the evidence given.hehe,现在好像很推崇这种开头，不错

To begin with, the study objects, the two groups of patients in this argument, are quite problematic. 可以推敲一下，应该是方法是problematic吧The author fails to present the details about the two groups of patients, such as the age, the body conditions, and the extent of their muscle strains.injuries好点吧，毕竟我看过说例子中injuries和结论中strain是偷换概念 These aspects are so crucial that anyone of them may affect the results of the study. Without the exact information, we may assume that most of patients in the first group are athletes whose ages are from20-30, while the second ones别扭 are the old(以前一个老师说老年人最好在作文里换种说法，比如senior citizens,不一定的只是个例子，据说old不是很好) with other illness. If these are in the case, we may draw a conclusion that it is the patients’ reason that is conducive to the quicker healing.  

Obviating the factors of the patients, there may be difference between the two doctors. Firstly, Dr. Newland, the specialist of sports medicine, perhaps is more effective and efficient than Dr. Alton in curing muscle strain with accomplished skills. Even if Dr. Newland is not so efficient, the patients may think so just because they hear that the doctor specializes in sports medicine, which will undoubtedly affect the cure effect. Thirdly, we do not know whether Dr. Newland gives other medicine to the patients besides the antibiotics because it is impossible to use only one kind of medicine for the patients with serious ill. Maybe it is not the antibiotics but this “other medicine” does the work for the cure. Without ruling out the information about the two doctors and what they have done, the argument can be rejected out of hand.(倒，跟上面的同志一样，迷茫阿)

Even if the factor of patients and doctors in the study is sound enough, there are some other problems in this argument. Firstly, the average recuperation is doubtable because it is possible the cure time of one or two patients in the second group are much slower than others, 不错which affects the ultimate results. Actually, these two groups’ patients have not the obvious difference in the course of the recuperation. Secondly, not all patients with severe muscle strain will be infectious, not mention to the second infectious. (没有一次感染的，就拉伤作为第一次伤害吧，这一点不放心就别写了)In this argument, the author fails to provide the exact data to tell us how many patients may be infectious due to the muscle strain. Thirdly, some of patients’ recuperation is quicker than typically expected, while the arguer advises all the patients diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. These are all logic holes in this argument.

In sum, the reasoning behind the advice is illogical. Unless more accurate study and factual information are presented, it would be too rush to make such a suggestion.
不错不错，都是高手

eyemeiUID: 205999

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... 3Dtype%26typeid%3D9
作业贴，以后作业贴过来哦

calsunnyUID: 2163431

1， the study objects, the two groups of patients in this argument, are quite problematic. 可以推敲一下，应该是方法是problematic吧----- 我写的是研究对象存在差异导致结果差异会很大，可能表达不很好。

2，the old(以前一个老师说老年人最好在作文里换种说法，比如senior citizens,不一定的只是个例子，据说old不是很好)-----非常感谢提醒，真的没有注意到这点，万一批改作文的老师是个old，可真惨
了。

3，关于二次感染的问题：当时写的时候就觉得这可能是个常识问题，但是自己不懂！还有是否肯定感染的问题，也不是很清楚呢！


非常感谢eyemei的修改，真的收获挺大的，谢谢！

[ 本帖最后由 calsunny 于 2006-3-17 04:24 编辑 ]

ciceUID: 2140424

The argument is well-presented, but not completely well-justified. By making a study of two groupsciting a study, the author advices all muscle strain patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. This argument is not sufficiently supported by the evidence given.

To begin with, the study objectsthe study’s subjects, the two groups of patients in this argument, are quite problematic. The author fails to present the details about the two groups of patients, such as the ageages, the body conditions, and the extent of their muscle strainsstrain. These aspects are so crucial that anyone of them may affect the results of the study. Without the exact information, we may assume that most of patients in the first group are athletes whose ages are from20-30, while the second ones are the old with other illnessillnesses. If these are in the case, we may draw a conclusion that it is the patients’ reason that is conducive to the quicker healing.  

Obviating the factors of the patients, there may be difference between the two doctors. Firstly, Dr. Newland, the specialist of sports medicine, perhaps is more effective and efficient than Dr. Alton in curing muscle strain with accomplished skills. Even if Dr. Newland is not so efficient, the patients may think so just because they hear that the doctor specializes in sports medicine, which will undoubtedly affect the cure effect. Thirdly, we do not know whether Dr. Newland gives other medicine to the patients besides the antibiotics because it is impossible to use only one kind of medicine for the patients with serious ill. Maybe it is not the antibiotics but this “other medicine” does the work for the cure. Without ruling out the information about the two doctors and what they have done, the argument can be rejected out of hand.

Even if the factor of patients and doctors in the study is sound enough, there are some other problems in this argument. Firstly, the average recuperation is doubtable because it is possible the cure time of one or two patients in the second group are much slower than others, which affects the ultimate results. Actually, these two groups’ patients have not the obvious difference in the course of the recuperation. Secondly, not all patients with severe muscle strain will be infectioussuffer infections, not mention tonot to mention the secondsecondary infectiousinfections. In this argument, the author fails to provide the exact data to tell us how many patients may be infectious due to the muscle strain. Thirdly, some of patients’ recuperation is quicker than typically expected, while the arguer advises all the patients diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. These are all logic holes in this argument.

In sum, the reasoning behind the advice is illogical. Unless more accurate study and factual information are presented, it would be too rush to make such a suggestion.

找到了一些我没想到的错误，呵呵。写得不错，就是开头结尾略显单薄。

zwzylrUID: 2132510

1.Obviating the factors of the patients, 觉得这样说很别扭啊，其它人有没有觉得？
2.which will undoubtedly affect the cure effect.慎用绝对词，改成probably
3. Firstly, the average recuperation is doubtable because it is possible the cure time of one or two patients in the second group are much slower than others想的好！真的是，我天天被一两个错误数据害，还想不到这点呢
4. These are all logic holes in this argument.
In sum, the reasoning behind the advice is illogical. Unless more accurate study and factual information are presented, it would be too rush to make such a suggestion.结尾仓促，是限时写吧