|
Argument51 【米国有米】小组第三次作业 In this letter, the arguer firstly stated the secondary infections prevented patiensts from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Then the arguer advised all patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. For supporting this argument, the arguer presented a study of two groups of patients. The statement seems logical according to the experiment mentioned above. However I find several flaws in the letter. Firstly, implementing the experiment is based on the hypothesis that the secondary infections would indeed take place on the patients who suffer from the severe muscle strain. The arguer considered that secondary infections prolonged the patients’ recuperation. However the arguer failed to give us the powerful proof to testify the patients must get secondary infections (inevitably). Generally speaking, the wound are easy to get infections while patients with muscle strain are not.(…因为伤口更有机会接触到bacterium) Thereby the assumption is incredible. On the other hand, the experiment showed us the antibiotics could shortten the recupertion. Also the arguer didn’t provide any relationship between the secondary infections and the antibiotics. I have to doubt the feasibility of the experimental result.(这一段主要攻击暗含假设:二次感染确实会发生.所以第二个分论点不太恰当)Even though the secondary infections would occur, the decrease of the recuperation might not be the effect of antibiotics but the dovotion of other factors in the experiment. Firstly, the resourc of patients may totally different. For example, if the first group are athletes while the other are normal persons. Then it is out of question that the second group will recover later than the first one.(…进一步简单解释为什么,e.g.运动员锻炼比平常人多,加快血液循环,更易恢复) Secondly, the discrepancy of doctors may be the reason causing the recuperation of the first group to reduce. Dr. Newland specialized in sports medicine. It is possible that his therapy to the patients will more effective than the treatment of Dr. Alton, a general physician. It might also be the case that the sugar pills keeped(kept) patients from recuperation. Consequently, it is very difficult to say the antibiotics is the reason to improve patiects’ recovery. If (为了加强两段的逻辑联系even if) antibiotics has the ability to shorten the recuperation, then is it the best choice for docter to choose to treat the patients with muscle strain? As we know, (the time of ) recuperation is not the only standard to estimate whether the medicion is good or not (effective or not in the process of treatment). The purpose to (of) treatment is getting (recovering) healthy. we would (prefer to)choose a kind of medicion which takes more time (but more effective) to cure the patients (不是选择时间长的而是有效的)rather than the one which makes patients recover quickly (while)at the same time it generates other side-effects(at the same time).(这里的逻辑乱了,康复花费的时间长短不是衡量药物有效与否的唯一方面,治疗的目的是恢复健康) Taking excessive antibiotics is harm to people. Hence, I don’t think all patients will accept the advice that to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.In a conclusion, this letter ignores the precondition of the hypothesis (不是忽略前提而是暗含没有被证实的前提) and fails to figure out the relationship between the secondary infections and the antibiotics. Also the experiment doesn't show enough proof to testify the antibiotics is the best choice to muscle strain.( for) Other alternative should be provided to compare with the antibiotics(否则此句多余). Much more work is needed (to be done) by the arguer before antibiotics can be used into the treatment to muscle strain. 这篇ARGU就比较乱了,论证啊,结论啊,都有很多逻辑问题没理清. 长句的驾驭能力不行,建议多看看范文对相同逻辑漏洞的论证,模仿其句式. 太忙了吧?加油哦! | 
发表于 2006-12-1 23:54:53
签到领寄托币
GO
转发
