argument51 [victor小组]第三次作业by totalsm45518

totalsm45518UID: 2286658

In this argument, the arguer concludes that secondary infections may prevent some patients from healing quickly after sever muscle strain. To support this point of view, he cites the evidence that the group of patients who have taken antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment, has 40 percent quicker recuperation time on average than typically expected. The arguer also suggests that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, the argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

   First of all, the arguer cites the evidence that two groups of patients which have taken different ways of treatment, have significant results in healing, which really cannot convincing us to accept. There is no evidence to provide the fact that the patients of the two groups all have the same physical conditions or under the same ages. If the group taking antibiotic injection are all vigorous youth with strong bodies, high ability to create new cells, and more ratio to absorb the medicine and nutrition, while the other group’s membership are all old women with poor health condition, and low ability to get over from sever muscle strain, there is no doubt that the former group will heal much more fast than the latter one, even if they haven’t taken antibiotic regularly. What’s more, the arguer doesn’t mention the exact amount of patients of each group, maybe it is a so limited number that we can’t obtain any authoritative conclusion from it.

   In addition, there is another problem with the argument as the arguer overlooks other factors that can influence the patients to heal quickly after sever muscle strain, considering solely and narrowly on the secondary infections. Maybe there are some other proper methods that can serve patients who are suffering from the pain of muscle strain to return him or her a normal body condition. For instance, some amount of light movements may really help to recover. Or maybe a diet cure is another excellent choice without injection which may also another pain in muscle. Regardless of all of these factors, the arguer projects the assumption that having secondary infections is the best way to reduce the recuperation time, which is entirely unsubstantiated.

   Finally, the arguer insists on the assumption that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, which is rootless at all. There is no evidence to support the assumption that the way of taking antibiotics is suit for all patients. Maybe this is just adjustable by athletes who have strong tissue of muscle and can endure the plenty amount of antibiotic injection, which is not the advisable choice of an old lady in whose body antibiotics may arouse abnormal reaction and even lead to the danger of death. As a result, the arguer should analyze concrete patients under different conditions to decide whether to choose this way of cure or not.

    In sum, there are several flaws in this argument that we really cannot acknowledge the conclusion that the speaker have projected. To strengthen his recommends, the arguer needs to cite other evidence that provides the obvious advantages of taking antibiotics. Additionally, the analysis and comparison of other cure methods should also be taken into consideration thus the suggestion can become convinced enough.

coraoneUID: 2233021

In this argument, the arguer concludes that secondary infections may prevent some patients from healing quickly after sever muscle strain. To support this point of view, he cites the evidence that the group of patients who have taken antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment, has 40 percent quicker recuperation time on average than typically expected. The arguer also suggests that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, the argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.（北美开头，没有什么问题，注意概述。）

   First of all, the arguer cites the evidence that two groups of patients which have taken different ways of treatment, have significant results in healing, which really cannot convincing us to accept. （这个攻击出发点）There is no evidence to provide the fact that the patients of the two groups all have the same physical conditions or under the same ages. If the group taking antibiotic injection are all vigorous youth with strong bodies, high ability to create new cells, and more ratio to absorb the medicine and nutrition, while the other group’s membership are all old women with poor health condition, and low ability to get over from sever muscle strain, there is no doubt that the former group will heal much more fast than the latter one, even if they haven’t taken antibiotic regularly. What’s more, the arguer doesn’t mention the exact amount of patients of each group, maybe it is a so limited number that we can’t obtain any authoritative conclusion from it.

   In addition, there is another problem with the argument as the arguer overlooks other factors that can influence the patients to heal quickly after sever muscle strain, considering solely and narrowly on the secondary infections. Maybe there are some other proper methods that can serve patients who are suffering from the pain of muscle strain to return him or her a normal body condition. For instance, some amount of light movements may really help to recover. Or maybe a diet cure is another excellent choice without injection which may also another pain in muscle. Regardless of all of these factors, the arguer projects the assumption that having secondary infections is the best way to reduce the recuperation time, which is entirely unsubstantiated.

   Finally, the , arguer insists on the assumption that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatmentwhich is rootless at all. There is no evidence to support the assumption that the way of taking antibiotics is suit for all patients. Maybe this is just adjustable by athletes who have strong tissue of muscle and can endure the plenty amount of antibiotic injection, which is not the advisable choice of an old lady in whose body antibiotics may arouse abnormal reaction and even lead to the danger of death. As a result, the arguer should analyze concrete patients under different conditions to decide whether to choose this way of cure or not.

    In sum, there are several flaws in this argument that we really cannot acknowledge the conclusion that the speaker have projected. To strengthen his recommends, the arguer needs to cite other evidence that provides the obvious advantages of taking antibiotics. Additionally, the analysis and comparison of other cure methods should also be taken into consideration thus the suggestion can become convinced enough.

我从总体上和你说一下你的argument
攻击，重点攻击作者的assumption和推论的过程，你在no evidence上花费了太多的笔墨，这是属于比较初级的逻辑错误，抓住错误类比，错误因果一类的错误进行攻击会显得有力的多。在每段的展开上你没有什么太大问题，注意下攻击的逻辑顺序。
coraone
20070506