ARGUMNT51 米国有米第三次作业

cckantUID: 2247822

本人第一篇argument，请多多指教。

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: 250          TIME: 0:45:00          DATE: 2006-12-1

In this argument, the speaker asserts the positive effect of secondary infections on severe muscle strain recovery by comparing two groups of patients treated by two doctors while patients of one group took antibiotics and patients of the other did not. Logically, it is not a sound deduction for the following reasons.

Firstly, the treating doctors are different in the two groups, which may have different treatment means beyond the usage of antibiotics. Since Dr. Newland who treats the group with use of antibiotics is a doctor specializing in sport medicine, while the other doctor, Dr. Alton is a general physician, it is natural to expect Dr. Newland to possess a higher level of professional proficiency. One must not overlook the contingent discrepancy in the treatment due to their professional preference and simply contributed the superior effect to the use of antibiotics and further secondary infections.

Secondly, though antibiotics are used against infections, it is not reasonable to equalize the effect of the absence of antibiotics and the stimulation of secondary infections. On one hand, patients do not take antibiotics does not necessarily suffer from infections. On the other hand, it is an open possibility that it is not the positive effect secondary infections, but rather the negative effect that antibiotics have on aspects other than infections control, that makes a difference.

Finally, as the sample sizes in both groups are not mentioned, the result observed may have no statistical significance. In the case that the sample size is not sufficiently large, the observed difference may merely come from the random factors that out of the control of the experiment examiner or from the variation in the individual difference in the two groups. Moreover, if the stochastic effect is large enough, it would dominate the overall effect so that it gives the realized observation while the opposite of assumed effect of secondary infections works.

In sum, lacking of complete information and consistent experimental design, the observation does not provides a valid conclusion on the relationship of secondary infections and muscle recovery.  

bailamo27UID: 2191717

In this argument, the speaker asserts the positive(这里用positive感觉有歧异） effect of secondary infections on severe muscle strain recovery by comparing two groups of patients treated by two doctors while patients of one group took antibiotics and patients of the other did not. Logically, it is not a sound deduction for the following reasons.

Firstly, the treating doctors are different in the two groups, which may have different treatment means beyond the usage of antibiotics. Since Dr. Newland who treats the group with use of antibiotics(delete "use of" 多余）is a doctor specializing in sport medicine, while the other doctor, Dr. Alton is a general physician, it is natural to expect Dr. Newland to possess a higher level of professional proficiency. One must not overlook the contingent discrepancy in the treatment due to their professional preference and simply contributed the superior effect to the use of antibiotics and further secondary infections(这个是进一步的二次感染的意思吗？我觉得这个没什么逻辑啊！）.

Secondly, though antibiotics are used against infections, it is not reasonable to equalize the effect of the absence of antibiotics and the stimulation of secondary infections. On one hand, patients do not take antibiotics does not necessarily suffer from infections. On the other hand, it is an open possibility that it is not the positive effect secondary infections, but rather the negative effect that antibiotics have on aspects other than infections control, that makes a difference.

Finally, as the sample sizes in both groups are not mentioned, the result observed may have no statistical significance.（呵呵，这句不错！想知道作者是什么专业的了，哈哈） In the case that the sample size is not sufficiently large, the observed difference may merely come from the random factors that out of the control of the experiment examiner or from the variation in the individual difference in the two groups. Moreover, if the stochastic effect is large enough, it would dominate the overall effect so that it gives the realized observation while the opposite of assumed effect of secondary infections works.

In sum, lacking of complete information and consistent experimental design, the observation does not provides a valid conclusion on the relationship of secondary infections and muscle recovery.  

１．第１段观点明确，直接提出论断无逻辑，语言简洁．
２．第２段指出医生的不同可能导致效果的不同．
３．第３段提出可能是由于抗生素的副作用而导致二次感染（是这个意思吗？），我看不大懂，如作者有时间解释一下，好吗？
４．第４段提出实验缺陷，样本量不够大，这个观点不错，很有攻击性．
５．总体来说，文章大致指出了论断的逻辑错误，好的词组和句子我用红色指出，但字数太少，应该注意充实一下内容．

cckantUID: 2247822

我刚才发现犯了一个致命的错误。审题审错了，我把题目得argument看成是不用抗生素留着secondary infection会好得快点。

所以在段二最后一句，我是想说，不能简单的把好得快点归因于没有吃抗生素，因为不吃抗生素不一定就等于有感染，所以也不能将好得快一点归因于感染。further（继而），表的是逻辑递进的意思。但是，看样子，即使我没有理解错的话，这样表述也有些含糊，应该改进一下。

嗯，速度是一个问题，大问题。

btw， 我专业是经济学。