第一次作业

evonayuUID: 2185117

电脑瘫痪好几天了，终于能把自己第一次作业交上来。也是我第一次写的A，问题应该不少，希望大家能指点。
Argument 51

In this newsletter,the author recommeds that some patients may be kept from healing quickly after severe muscle strain because of secondary infections.And they should be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.To support this recommendation,the author projects preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients.But the author's argument is flawed in seveal aspects.

To begin with,the statistical reliability of the study's results is ambiguous.The author fails to inform us of the sample size which may be far from sufficient and hardly represent.For example, maybe 4 or 5 patients constitute an insufficiently small group,thus their recuperation time would just happen to be quicker than typically expected.Second,neither does he mention the selection procedure.After a careful analysis,the reliability of this study needs to be called into question.

Moreover,assuming that spending less recuperation time was in fact due to the antibiotics.
The author overlooks the possibility that the results can be caused by other factors as well.Perhaps the patients not only took antibiotics but also took another more efficient medicine throught their treatment,or perhaps they were benefit from a more nutritious diet and taking a better rest.Also,the environment of the hospital exerted a tremendously positive influence on their treatment.Without ruling out these and those alternative means of treating for muscle injuries,the author cannot attribute the results to the antibiltics.

it might be a false analogy between the first  and the second group.The author ignores the fact that there is a series of disparities between the two group.Such as environment,pharmaceuticals,doctors,diet and the kind of therapy.
Besides,the patients in  two groups do not necessarily reflect those who didn't participate in the study.For instance,some people are allergic to antibiltics and they have to take other kinds of medicine.

In sum,the argument is far from convincing.To enhance it ,the author needs to provide clear evidencn that the sample size or procedure is reliable ,and antibiotics is a efficient factor leading to the results of  the treatment.

helenlhhUID: 2127690

1,写完的第一步是贴到word里检查一下最基本的拼写错误，语法错误也能查出一些，不过还要靠自己，有时候word不管用。

2、argument最重要的是批驳到位，虽然你的摸版用的很好，但只有空壳是不行的。要把逻辑错误点出来，先指出错在哪，然后再详细说明问题。你虽然点出了一些错误进行论述，但看上去思路很乱。

看看这个帖子，里面分析的很清楚
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

seakoUID: 2223371

In this news letter, the author （推荐用arguer）recommends that some patients may be kept from healing quickly after severe muscle strain because of secondary infections. And they should be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this recommendation, the author projects preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. But the author's argument is flawed in several aspects.

To begin with, the statistical reliability of the study's results is ambiguous. The author fails to inform us of the sample size which may be far from sufficient and hardly represent（representative）.For example, maybe 4 or 5 patients constitute an insufficiently small group, thus their recuperation time would just happen to be quicker than typically expected. Second, neither does he mention the selection procedure. After a careful analysis, the reliability of this study needs to be called into question.

Moreover, assuming that spending less recuperation time was in fact due to the antibiotics. The author overlooks the possibility that the results can be caused by other factors as well. Perhaps the patients not only took antibiotics but also took another more efficient medicine through their treatment, or perhaps they were benefit from a more nutritious diet and taking a better rest. Also, the environment of the hospital exerted a tremendously positive influence on their treatment. Without ruling out these and those alternative means of treating for muscle injuries, the author cannot attribute the results to the antibiotics.

It might be a false analogy between the first and the second group. The author ignores the fact that there is(are) a series of disparities between the two groups. Such as environment, pharmaceuticals, doctors, diet and the kind of therapy.
Besides, the patients in  two groups do not necessarily reflect those who didn't participate in the study. For instance, some people are allergic to antibiotics and they have to take other kinds of medicine.

In sum, the argument is far from convincing. To enhance it ,the author needs to provide clear evidence  that the sample size or procedure is reliable ,and antibiotics is a efficient factor leading to the results of  the treatment.

总结：1建议下次交作业千把文章粘到word里把简单的拼写错误改过来。
      2只有300出头的字数似乎少了点，尽管并没有明确的字数要求但字数对文章的透彻性有间接影响。不过鉴于是第一篇阿狗，可以慢慢提高。
      3正确的英文格式是标点和前一个此间无空格，与后一个词中间有空格，好像引号除外。可以参考一下论坛上相关帖子，有相关介绍。
      4条理清晰，语言有待提高
第一次能写成这样已经很不错了，继续加油啊，大家一起努力哦

evonayuUID: 2185117

谢谢指点，我会继续努力的:D