argument51 超高频[shining sep]作文组 修改后

flycc28UID: 2164453

ARGUMENT51The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

修改在5楼

"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."

写得让自己都觉得恶心...


In this argument, the author advocates that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To substantiate it, the author points out that secondary infection may prevent muscle patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and then cites a study to support it. However, the argument has several flaws, which render it unconvincing.

A threshold problem with this argument involves that the secondary infection which may keep patients from healing quickly will occur inevitably on patients. The author fails to substantiate the assumption, if secondary infection does not occur, the advice that muscle sufferers should take antibiotics is rootless basically.

The study deriving from a study is also unwarranted. The statistical information of which is suspicious due to absence of the basic data of ages, gender, and health condition of the two groups. It is entirely possible that patients of the first group are stronger and younger than patients of the second group. If this is the case, patients of first group will recuperate quicker no matter using antibiotics or not. Hence without ruling out individual differences of the two groups, the arguer cannot convince me that antibiotics will be effective.

The possible tolerances of medical skill of the two doctors may weaken the argument. Doctors specialized in sports medicine may be better at sport illness such as muscle strain than general physician.
Moreover, the positive or negative function of sugar pill eat by the group is also unknown. It’s possible that the sugar pill will restrain and inhibit the recuperation of muscle patients. With these unknown factors, we cannot say that antibiotics lead the quicker recuperation from the study of the two groups.

At the same time, there some side-effect may be brought for the using of the antibiotics. So before more information concerning antibiotics is provided, we should not take it hasty.

To make the arguments more convincing, the speaker should provide relevant evidence on the rate of secondary infection among the muscle strain patients, and the study is worked out among people who are at the same condition, and then concludes that antibiotics can make the recuperation quicker.

[ 本帖最后由 flycc28 于 2006-8-20 16:57 编辑 ]

zeelichUID: 2194744

In this argument, the author advocates that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To substantiate it, the author points out that secondary infection may prevent muscle patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and then cites a study to support it. However, the argument has several flaws, which render it unconvincing.

A threshold problem with this argument involves that the secondary infection which may keep patients from healing quickly will occur inevitably on patients. The author fails to substantiate the assumption, if secondary infection does not occur, the advice that muscle sufferers should take antibiotics is rootless basically.(感觉这两句话就是颠倒着在说,没有内容....)
The study deriving from a study is also unwarranted(什么意思?调查中得出的调查?). The statistical information of which(which指代错了啊，放在这就变成statistical information了，而不是study了) is suspicious due to absence of the basic data of ages, gender, and health condition of the two groups. It is entirely possible that patients of the first group are stronger and younger than patients(those) of the second group. If this is the case, patients of first group will recuperate quicker no matter(would have no correlation to) using antibiotics or not. Hence without ruling out individual differences of the two groups, the arguer cannot convince me that antibiotics will be effective.

The possible tolerances of medical skill of the two doctors may weaken the argument. Doctors specialized in sports medicine may be better at sport illness such as muscle strain than general physician.
Moreover, the positive or negative function of sugar pill eat by the group is also unknown. It’s possible that the sugar pill will restrain and inhibit the recuperation of muscle patients.(这个...sugar pill也太神奇了吧..) With these unknown factors, we cannot say that antibiotics lead the quicker recuperation from the study of the two groups.

At the same time, there(删) some side-effect may be brought for the using of the antibiotics. So before more information concerning antibiotics is provided, we should not take it hasty.(再多写点内容啊,这太简略了)
To make the arguments more convincing, the speaker should provide relevant evidence on the rate of secondary infection among the muscle strain patients, and the study is worked out among people who are at the same condition, and then concludes that antibiotics can make the recuperation quicker.

[ 本帖最后由 zeelich 于 2006-8-19 19:10 编辑 ]

jinzhemingUID: 2224073

是不是组长追求简洁，我没想到你写的thresh problem，请解释一下你的思路，谢谢：）

我的文章模板较重。
1 第二组病人的身体状况未知
2 实验中抗生素和恢复时间的因果关系
3 hasty generalization

In this argument, the arguer concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support his conclusion, the arguer points out that the preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients now have proved the hypothesis. However, the argument is flawed in three major aspects.

Firstly, the evidence that the average recuperation time of patients in the second group was not significantly reduced was used to support the conclusion that taking antibiotics is effective in treating the muscle strain from an opposite perspective. However, it is too vague and oversimplified. No evidence is provided to substantiate that these patients also have muscle injuries. If this is the case, taking sugar pills instead of antibiotics could not prove that taking antibiotics was effective, and thus, the result that their average recuperation time was not greatly reduced is meaningless.

Secondly, even if it were the case that patients of the second group have the same injuries as those in the first group, the arguer provides no evidence to prove the cause-and-effect relationship between antibiotics and its effectiveness in treating the injuries. It is possible that in the first group, other medicines through their treatment have equal effect on preventing secondary infection. It is also possible that, in the second group, patients were not very concerned about their injuries, and thus, they were more likely to be susceptible to infection than patients in the first group. If this is the case, their average recuperation time would probably remain unchanged or even longer. Without ruling out these possibilities, the evidence that taking antibiotics is effective against infection is unconvincing.

Thirdly, even if the results of the study were reliable and suggested that antibiotics were effective, there is no evidence to warrant the truth that these patients are representative of all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. Given that the argument provides no information about how study was conducted and how many patients participated in the study, whether antibiotics could apply to all patients with muscle strain needs to be further investigated. It is possible that some patients must not take antibiotics because of severe allergy and body reaction after taking the medicine. If this is the case, the arguer's advice is biased and dangerous.

In sum, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. To strength the conclusion, the arguer should provide more information about the study with the number of patients, the health condition of the patients and other specific medicine included in the treatment.

zeelichUID: 2194744

ARGU嘛,哪有模板不重的...

flycc28UID: 2164453

In this argument, the author advocates that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To substantiate it, the author points out that secondary infection may prevent muscle patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and then cites a study to support it. However, the argument has several flaws, which render it unconvincing.

A threshold problem with this argument is that the author ignores the differences of the two groups. Differences in age, gander, physical condition vocation and so firth will make the study unpersuasive. For instance, In case that the first group is made up of strong young men who often do exercises, and the second group is full with old ladies who usually stay at home. Or perhaps patients of the first group suffer slight muscle strain, but second group sufferers are worse ill. Either of the scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the result. In addition,

Even assuming that the study was conducted in the same condition, the author fails to provide sufficient evidence to support that only antibiotics lead to the less recuperating time. Since the doctor differs inherently. It is commonly known that sports doctors is better at curing patients of physical injury, like muscle strain, than a general physician. Even if they are the same line, their experiences, treating approach, skill level will have considerable influences on patients’ recuperation. Moreover, the sugar pill may have a side-effect on patients which may inhibit the recuperation of the patients. Hence, without ruling out these possibilities, we cannot ensure the positive effect of antibiotics.

Even if antibiotics will be helpful to prevent the secondary infection, advising all the patients to take antibiotics is unwarranted. Since infection is the only cause for longer recuperation. It is entirely possible that tiredness resulting in the recuperation. Other possible alternative explanations will weaken the conclusion. Furthermore, whether the antibiotics are applicable to every patient is unknown, if some of them are allergic to the antibiotics, the proposal will be untenable.

In sum, the conclusion lacks credibility, because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to the arguer’s advice. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide more information about the study, and we would need to know other possible alternatives may be responsible for the less time of recuperation

MagicGlaiveUID: 2112081

In this argument, the author advocates that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To substantiate it, the author points out that secondary infection may prevent muscle patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and then cites a study to support it. However, the argument has several flaws, which render it unconvincing.

A threshold problem with this argument is that the author ignores the differences of the two groups. Differences in age, gander--->gender, physical condition vocation and so firth--->forth will make the study unpersuasive. For instance, In case that the first group is made up of strong young men who often do exercises, and the second group is full with old ladies who usually stay at home. Or perhaps patients of the first group suffer slight muscle strain, but second group sufferers are worse ill. Either of the scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the result. In addition,

Even assuming that the study was conducted in the same condition, the author fails to provide sufficient evidence to support that only antibiotics lead to the less recuperating time. Since the doctor differs inherently. It is commonly known that sports doctors is better at curing patients of physical injury, like muscle strain, than a general physician. Even if they are the same line, their experiences, treating approach, skill level will have considerable influences on patients’ recuperation好！. Moreover, the sugar pill may have a side-effect on patients which may inhibit the recuperation of the patients. Hence, without ruling out these possibilities, we cannot ensure the positive effect of antibiotics.

Even if antibiotics will be helpful to prevent the secondary infection, advising all the patients to take antibiotics is unwarranted. Since infection is the only cause for longer recuperation. It is entirely possible that tiredness resulting in the recuperation. Other possible alternative explanations will weaken the conclusion. Furthermore, whether the antibiotics are applicable to every patient is unknown, if some of them are allergic to the antibiotics, the proposal will be untenable.

In sum, the conclusion lacks credibility, because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to the arguer’s advice. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide more information about the study, and we would need to know other possible alternatives may be responsible for the less time of recuperation

感觉写的挺好，把survey的内容分成了两段，没有深究前提的准确性也不失为一种写法