Argument51 [infinity小组]第九次作业

mayaUID: 199038

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - 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."
WORDS: 448          TIME: 35min          DATE: 2006-7-3

Merely based on some unfounded assumptions and a dubious study, the medical newsletter draws a conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would be convinced to take antibiotics in their treatment. However, after a careful examination of this argument, we can clearly find how groundless the argument is. There are several critical flaws cited in this argument.

To begin with, one problem with the argument involves the cited study about two groups of patients. It is unreasonable to draw any conclusions about the reflection after the treatment based on the result of different groups of patients. Depending on the total number of patients who have this muscle problem, it is entirely possible that these two groups patients are not representative of the total number of this disease patients. For example, perhaps the first group patients are easily cured by antibiotics due to a sensitive genetics, while another group patients are otherwise. If so, then the study cited by the medical newsletter' conclusion might amount to poor advice for the treatment.

The argument relies on what might be a false analogy between the first group and the second group. In order for the first group's treatment to be proved right, the study should choose, at least, the same level treatment programs. Yet the study indicates that the first group's doctor prescribed the sports medicine and the second group's doctor gave sugar pills to the patients. In the medical area, such as this study's result would not be applied.

In addition, the medical newsletter presented a statistics that 40 percent quicker than typical expected after the treatment by the sports medicine in the first group. The arguer have not provided a exact time of this treatment. It might be that this statistics is not a reference to the real treatment. It is also possible that the typical medicine can also give a quick treatment as the sports medicine can do. Or perhaps the treatment of the sports medicine is just a temporary result. After few hours, the symptoms of the muscle strains are the same, or even worse than before.

To sum up, the medical newsletter’s conclusion lacks credible evidence to support. To better evaluate this argument, the medical letter should provide more information for the study and indicate that the two groups patients can represent a standard for the whole patients who injured with this muscle strains. In addition, the arguer should consider the doctor’s choice of the medicines. If he wants to guarantee the accuracy of the study, there must be a same reference condition through the whole treatment. Otherwise, the conclusion of advising the antibiotics as the treatment to the muscle strain is not logically acceptable.

hqiushiUID: 152420

开头和结尾很精彩啊  呵呵
中间括号是我觉得可以改的 我感觉大家都想用好句子 可却往往写的力不从心 可能都要多看范文吧 呵呵


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."

Merely based on some unfounded assumptions and a dubious study, the medical newsletter draws a conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would be convinced to take antibiotics in their treatment. However, after a careful examination of this argument, we can clearly find how groundless the argument is. There are several critical flaws cited in this argument.

To begin with, one problem（the first problem in）with the argument involves the cited study about two groups of patients. It is unreasonable to draw any conclusions (about the reflection after the treatment based on) from the result of different groups of patients. Depending on(given) the total number of patients who have this muscle problem, it is entirely possible that these two groups patients are not representative. (of the total number of this disease patients). For example, perhaps the first group patients are easily cured by antibiotics due to a sensitive genetics, while another(the other) group patients(group patient不知道可不可以这样用) are otherwise. If so, （then）the study cited by the medical newsletter' conclusion might amount to poor advice(value) for the treatment.

Secondly, the argument relies on (what might be) a possibly false analogy between the first group and the second group. (In order for the first group's treatment to be proved right), the study should choose, at least, the same level treatment programs(the same kind of doctors). Yet (the study indicates that) the first group's doctor (specializes in sports medicine) prescribed the sports medicine and(while) the second group's doctor(, a general physician) gave sugar pills to the patients. In the medical area, such as this study's result would not be applied.

In addition, the medical newsletter presented a statistics that 40 percent quicker than typical expected after the treatment by the sports medicine in the first group. The arguer have not provided a(an) exact time of this treatment. It might be that this statistics is not a reference to the real treatment. It is also possible that the typical medicine can also give a quick treatment as the sports medicine can do. Or perhaps the treatment of the sports medicine is just a temporary result. After few hours, the symptoms of the muscle strains are the same, or even worse than before.

To sum up, the medical newsletter’s conclusion lacks credible evidence to support. To better evaluate this argument, the medical letter should provide more information for the study and indicate that the two groups patients can represent a standard for the whole patients who injured with this muscle strains. In addition, the arguer should consider the doctor’s choice of the medicines. If he wants to guarantee the accuracy of the study, there must be a same reference condition through the whole treatment. Otherwise, the conclusion of advising the antibiotics as the treatment to the muscle strain is not logically acceptable.

hqiushiUID: 152420

可不可以帮我也看一下 啊
TOPIC: ARGUMENT201 - The citizens of Forsythe have adopted healthier lifestyles. Their responses to a recent survey show that in their eating habits they conform more closely to government nutritional recommendations than they did ten years ago. Furthermore, there has been a fourfold increase in sales of food products containing kiran, a substance that a scientific study has shown reduces cholesterol. This trend is also evident in reduced sales of sulia, a food that few of the healthiest citizens regularly eat.
WORDS: 427          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-7-3

In the passage above, the author try to convince us that citizens of Forsythe have adopted healthier lifestyles. He presents the evidence that the people's eating habits conform more closely to nutritional recommendations and sales of food products that contains kiran has increased. But the proof above has many flaws and I will discuss them as below.

The threshold flaw of the author's analysis is that the survey he mentions is not accurate. The so-called survey hasn't gives the accepters' conditions and the number of people accepting the survey. As a result, we can not validate the authority of it. And in the survey, it shows that people's eating habits conform more closely to government nutritional recommendations, but it hasn't illustrated what the recommendations are. We even don't know whether it is good for health according to recent standards.

Further more, the author tells that there has been a fourfold increase in sales of food products containing kiran but fails to presents the accurate quantity of the sales. Maybe after a fourfold increase, the sales is still very small. And kiran is just a substance to reduce cholesterol which can not demonstrate that people here prefer to have healthy food. Maybe more and more people here have got disease due to cholesterol so that they are afraid of it. It is also possible that people like the favor of the food which contains kiran. In this case, we have little evidence to say that the increased sales reflect that people have adopted healthier lifestyles.

Last but not least, even the citizens here have changed their lifestyles, there is no relationship between the healthier lifestyles and the reduced sales of sulia. If sulia have been loved by the local people for many years and people would rather to eat it even if it is bad for their health, would the sales of sulia be reduced? What’s more, the passage only says that few of the healthiest persons eat it which does not mean that it is bad for people’s health. So people may have no hesitation when buying this food.

All in all, the passage provide some unsubstantiated proof so that it's conclusion, citizens here have adopted healthier lifestyles is not convincing. We need more information to evident the assumption, for example, the government recommendation need to be checked in order to judge that whether it can demonstrate that whether people conform more closely to the healthier lifestyles. And the reasons of the increased sales of food contains kiran need to find out, too.

sweet_fruitUID: 2190845

Merely based on some unfounded assumptions and a dubious study, the medical newsletter draws a conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would be convinced to take antibiotics in their treatment. However, after a careful examination of this argument, we can clearly find how groundless the argument is. There are several critical flaws cited in this argument.

To begin with, one problem with the argument involves the cited study about two groups of patients. It is unreasonable to draw any conclusions about the reflection after the treatment based on the result of different groups of patients. Depending on the total number of patients who have this muscle problem, it is entirely possible that these two groups（加of） patients are not representative of the total number of this disease patients.（感觉这样不妥，最好改成从句） For example, perhaps the first group patients are easily cured by antibiotics due to a sensitive genetics, while another group（of） patients are otherwise. If so, then the study cited by the medical newsletter' conclusion might amount to poor advice for the treatment.

The argument relies on what might be a false analogy between the first group and the second group. In order for the first group's treatment to be proved right, the study should choose, at least, the same level treatment programs. Yet the study indicates that the first group's doctor prescribed the sports medicine （题目中有说这点吗，好像灭有）and the second group's doctor gave sugar pills to the patients. In the medical area, such as this study's result would not be applied.（感觉过于简单了点，可以再分析一下，例如，用不同的药怎么就不行了，举个具体的例子）

In addition, the medical newsletter presented a statistics that 40 percent quicker than typical expected after the treatment by the sports medicine in the first group. The arguer have not provided a（改成an） exact time of this treatment. It might be that this statistics is not a reference to the real treatment.（这个可以归入第一段） It is also possible that the typical medicine can also give a quick treatment as the sports medicine can do. Or perhaps the treatment of the sports medicine is just a temporary result. After （a）few hours, the symptoms of the muscle strains are the same, or even worse than before.

To sum up, the medical newsletter’s conclusion lacks credible evidence to support. To better evaluate this argument, the medical letter should provide more information for the study and indicate that the two groups patients can represent a standard for the whole patients who injured with this muscle strains. In addition, the arguer should consider the doctor’s choice of the medicines. If he wants to guarantee the accuracy of the study, there must be a same reference condition through the whole treatment. Otherwise, the conclusion of advising the antibiotics as the treatment to the muscle strain is not logically acceptable.

感觉错误点都有说到,但是不够深入,如果是限时写的还是不错的

[ 本帖最后由 sweet_fruit 于 2006-7-4 11:24 编辑 ]

mayaUID: 199038

你没有加入一个小组吗？主要你写的和我们组的题目都不一样，这样改起来也没什么意思。如果你没有小组你可以每天看看我们要求的作业，这是链接
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-483750-1-1.html
现在主要人都满了，你可以每天按照这里的和我们一起写，到时候你发消息给我把你的作文连接贴上，我会给你改。

hqiushiUID: 152420

o   是
不过不知道你们是根据何地的机井写呢