Argument51 恳请重拍，谢谢

菲子UID: 2311527

这次仍是没有限时，经验不足啊。
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: 347          TIME: 0:41:06          DATE: 2007-4-27

批驳点：
1，对于两组患者的身体情况不了解。也许一组都是身强体壮的成人，另一组是老人和孩子。也许不服用抗生素，他们也可以迅速恢复。
2，两组的医生不是同一个人，两者的治疗方式可能不同。第一组医生是sports medicine专业，很可能在治疗护理上做得更好。
3，对于抗生素是否有不良反应，还没有做出合理的实验。没有告知价格

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 cites the doctors' long suspicion of secondary infection's preventing some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. In addition, he provides the result of a study conducted at two groups of patients which demonstrated that the group having antibiotics healed more quickly than the control group. However, this argument is fraught with vague and oversimplified assumptions.

In the first place, the arguer fails to provide any evidence of the health state of people of the two groups. It is quite possible that most of people in the first group are healthy adults, while people in the second one are the old with varieties of disease, which slow down the healing of their muscle strain. In that case, the first group would heal more quickly than the second one without having antibiotics.

Another flaw that weakens this argument is that the doctors taking care are not at the same level. The doctor of the first group is a specialist in sports medicine, so it is easy to assume that he might be more experienced and operated a better medical project, which fastened the healing of this group, than another doctor, a general physician.

More over, the arguer fails to take into account other possible reasons such as the side effects and the price of antibiotics. Supposing that the antibiotics are very expensive, it would not be well advised, even if taking that can fasten the recuperation of the patients.

To conclude, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept this conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to demonstrate that the two groups had the same medical project with the only difference of whether taking antibiotics or not, and that people of the two groups have very similar health state, and that the side effects of the antibiotics are not serious, and that the price of the medicine is not very high.

ploploUID: 2320001

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 cites the doctors' long suspicion of secondary infection's preventing some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. In addition, he provides the result of a study conducted at two groups of patients which demonstrated that the group having antibiotics healed more quickly than the control group. However, this argument is fraught with vague and oversimplified assumptions.（开头冗长，建议丢掉孙远所谓4句话。具体建议见末尾）


In the first place, the arguer fails to provide any evidence of the health state of people of the two groups. It is quite possible that most of people in the first group are healthy adults, while people in the second one are the old with varieties of disease, which slow down the healing of their muscle strain. In that case, the first group would heal more quickly than the second one without having antibiotics.（找到错误，但未充分展开。尤其细节，在Argu里很拿分的。比如说第一可能更健康，就不如说，他们有更好的饮食习惯，经常性锻炼身体，有乐观心态，所以免疫力更强等等。）


Another flaw that weakens this argument is that the doctors taking care are not at the same level. The doctor of the first group is a specialist in sports medicine, so it is easy to assume that he might be more experienced and operated a better medical project, which fastened the healing of this group, than another doctor, a general physician. （对比论述不够，显单薄，建议同上）


More over, the arguer fails to take into account other possible reasons such as the side effects and the price of antibiotics. Supposing that the antibiotics are very expensive, it would not be well advised, even if taking that can fasten the recuperation of the patients.（同上）


To conclude, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept this conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to demonstrate that the two groups had the same medical project with the only difference of whether taking antibiotics or not, and that people of the two groups have very similar health state, and that the side effects of the antibiotics are not serious, and that the price of the medicine is not very high.

基本错误都有找到，刚开始写酱紫已经有形状了。重要的是充实内容。多看老鸟的文章。嗯~既然刚开写，就要尽力少走弯路，磨刀不误砍柴工。花两个小时研究下面两个帖子。
胜过自己写20个小时的作文。时间紧，就说到这。加油！


https://bbs.gter.net/thread-627038-1-1.html
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-641244-1-1.html

[ 本帖最后由 ploplo 于 2007-4-28 13:27 编辑 ]

菲子UID: 2311527

多谢修改，一定好好努力:handshake :)

ghost33UID: 2267869

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 cites the doctors' long suspicion of secondary infection's preventing some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain.（我自己在写这里的时候，我觉得这个suspicion只是起到了引起文章的作用，作者并没有用它来支持他的结论？） In addition, he provides the result of a study conducted at two groups of patients which demonstrated that the group having antibiotics healed more quickly than the control group. However, this argument is fraught with vague and oversimplified assumptions.

In the first place, the arguer fails to provide any evidence of the health state of people of the two groups. It is quite possible that most of people in the first group are healthy adults, while people in the second one are the old with varieties of disease, which slow down the healing of their muscle strain. In that case, the first group would heal more quickly than the second one without having antibiotics.（这句话说得太绝对了，个人认为不好。加些maybe一类的词语更好）

Another flaw that weakens this argument is that the doctors taking care （可以这样做定语么？in charge 会不会好些）are not at the same level. The doctor of the first group is a specialist in sports medicine, so it is easy to assume that he might be more experienced and operated（could operate） a better medical project, which fastened the healing of this group, than another doctor, a general physician.

More over, the arguer fails to take into account other possible reasons such as the side effects and the price of antibiotics. Supposing that the antibiotics are very expensive, it would not be well advised, even if taking it can fasten the recuperation of the patients.（这段再发展一下就更好啦！）

To conclude, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept this conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to demonstrate that the two groups had the same medical project with the only difference of whether taking antibiotics or not, and that people of the two groups have very similar health state, and that the side effects of the antibiotics are not serious, and that the price of the medicine is not very high.
你的结构已经很不错了哈。只是论点发展不够，这样感觉你没话说一样。加油哦！

[ 本帖最后由 ghost33 于 2007-4-29 12:30 编辑 ]