argument51 【勇往直前小组】

nornsUID：2325187

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: 463          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-4 17:51:22

By the contrast of two different treatments, the author concludes the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep patients from healing quickly and finally suggested taking antibiotics as a treatment for muscle strain. However, the author’s statements has several flaws as we discuss below.

Firstly, the experiment itself can not support the hypothesis. Can patients, we may wonder, represent the general conditions? Maybe the population of them is too little to have a general estimation. What's more, there are other possibilities rather than antibiotic, cause the same fact. Maybe the patients in the first group are generally stronger and cure faster so that they heal faster.  And, notice that the doctor in the first group is specialist in sports medicine, and the doctor in the second group is a general physician. It is entire possible the main reason for the first group recovering faster is that the doctor who is expert in the area. And antibiotic has few effects on it. What's more, the sugar might do a counterproductive part on the cure of the s

Further, even if the hypothesis holds true, we can not convince that antibiotic has effect on most of the patients. The patients in the hypothesis mentioned are suffering from severe muscle strain. It is possible that most of the time patients of muscle is not that severe, then the case of secondary infection is not likely to happen. If this is true, then although the antibiotic has effect on muscle, we are not sure they can heal most of the patients. The author should provide detailed information about the percentage of severe muscle strain among the patients.

What's more, even if the antibiotic has effect, we can not all the patients to use it as part of treatment. Firstly, how is the effect about it? The data that author cited only reveals the effect on severe patients. If it has effect on all the patients, can it help the healing process significantly? Are there any better alternatives? If a medicine is more efficacious and lower in price, we should suggest patients to use this medicine rather than antibiotic. More importantly, does antibiotic have some side effect? If some patients are sensitive to it, or it has too much bad effect on other parts of the body we should not advise patients use this treatment. In all, the author's suggestion is based on insufficient information.

To sum up, the author's suggestion is not convincible in that the contract of the  two groups are not persuasive to supporting the hypothesis; the condition of severe patients can not fully understand the general conditions of patients; the side effect and other possible causes are not mentioned and excluded. To make it better sound, the author should provide more information in these respects.

ghost33UID：2267869

谢谢修改哈，你的明天发给你，今天机房速度奇慢！！！

ghost33UID：2267869

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: 463          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-4 17:51:22

By the contrast of two different treatments, the author concludes the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep patients from healing quickly and finally suggested taking antibiotics as a treatment for muscle strain. However, the author’s statements has[细节问题，单复数还是留意一下] several flaws as we discuss below.

Firstly, the experiment itself cannot support the hypothesis. Can patients, we may wonder, represent the general conditions? Maybe the population[用词不当：这个词是人口和人口密度的意思，用在这里太大了，换成number就行了。而且就算是population，也不和little搭配。Small population or large population] of them is too little to have a general estimation. What's more, there are other possibilities[注意细节呀：这里回到正常顺序就成了：possibility cause the fact?? 用factors吧？] rather than antibiotic, cause the same fact. Maybe the patients in the first group are generally stronger and cure faster so that they heal faster.  And, notice that the doctor in the first group is specialist in sports medicine, and the doctor in the second group is a general physician. It is entire possible the main reason for the first group recovering faster is that the doctor who is expert in the area. And antibiotic has few effects on it. What's more, the sugar might do a counterproductive part on the cure of the s这一段逻辑蛮混乱的！论证不深入，只是点到为止而已！

Further, even if the hypothesis holds true, we can not convince用词不当！这是：使别人相信的意思！用believe就好了！ that antibiotic has effect on most of the patients. The patients in the hypothesis mentioned are suffering from severe muscle strain. It is possible that most of the time patients of muscle is not that severe这种与实验和这个argument都无关的假设我觉得很不可信呀？它怎么就不能severe了？在现实生活中的发生的事情可是随机的，哪能由得人来假设？你还不如说：实验中的那些人伤得都不厉害呢？, then the case of secondary infection is not likely to happen. If this is true, then although the antibiotic has effect on muscle, we are not sure they can heal most of the patients. The author should provide detailed information about the percentage of severe muscle strain among the patients.这段证得没到位呀！What's more, even if the antibiotic has effect, we can not [……缺动词]all the patients to use it as part of treatment. Firstly, how is the effect about it? The data that author cited only reveals the effect on severe patients. If it has effect on all the patients, can it help the healing process significantly? Are there any better alternatives? If a medicine is more efficacious and lower in price, we should suggest patients to use this medicine rather than antibiotic. More importantly, does antibiotic have some side effect? If some patients are sensitive to it, or it has too much bad effect on other parts of the body we should not advise patients use this treatment. In all, the author's suggestion is based on insufficient information.嘿！这段很不错哦，有条理，一条一条驳！赞！！：）

To sum up, the author's suggestion is not convincible用convincing? in that the contract[这个词用得我找不着北了？你是想说对比吧？？] of the  two groups are not persuasive[这个词似乎太那个啥？中文？？enough就够了吧] to supporting the hypothesis; the condition of severe patients can not fully understand the general conditions of patients; the side effect and other possible causes are not mentioned and excluded. To make it better sound[要么sound要么不sound，你一个better sound到底什么立场呢？？况且地说：sound这种词没有比较级吧？仿佛？？], the author should provide more information in these respects.

我觉得一个大问题：：：楼主用词不是很准呢？？当然只是个人看法！建议你计时写好后，自己先修改一遍吧！


批得当不当都不要介意哈！一起加油哦！！！