Argument51 勇往直前小组第六次作业 bynashiong

xiongnashiongUID：2359406

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: 512          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-6

In the argument above , the arguer claims that patients should take antibiotics in their treatment when get diagnosed with muscle strain . however , close scrutiny reveal that the facts listed in the argument could lend little support to the conclusion.
First of all ,the arguer claims that doctors' hypothesis has been proved by study , but this claims suffers from several fallacies .
the arguer cites the facts that patients in the first group recuperation time was 40% quicker that typically expected ,and patients in second group average recuperation time was not reduce .however ,the arguer fails to explain how long a time is typically expected as long as how long a time is "average recuperation time" ,it is entirely possible that "typically expected" time is not amount to "recuperation time" which means we could not know which group of people recover quicker . in short , to rule out this possibility , the arguer has to provide a shared standard of recuperation time rather than a vague conception.
even in the comparison , two group of patients all share a common time standard ,the arguer still unfairly contribute antibiotics as the reason for quicker recuperation time in first group . as we know from the facts , doctor who be responsible for the first group is a one who specializes in sports medicine ,while the other doctor is just a general physician , so it is entirely possible that doctor Dr .Newland could be more experienced in dealing with sport injuries ,like muscle injuries  .and he could usually more appropriate means to guild patients ,like a notion of diet ,sleep ,and so on . if this is the case , than disparity of doctors could contribute to the difference of recuperation time rather then antibiotics . moreover , even the doctors are equal experienced in dealing with muscle injuries ,we could note that in the second group ,patients have eaten sugar pills ,although this material is widely used in compared experiments ,however , the arguer has to provide more evidence to point out sugar will have nothing to do with muscle injuries .in short ,the possibilities that either doctor's experiences and sugar will affect the study result would be make out to make the conclusion persuasive.
the arguer asserts that this study could prove a hypothesis that secondary infections play a important role in healing delay . however , in the study the arguer cited , no proof could indicate that these patients are suffering a secondary infections. it is highly possible that antibiotics just play its role in the first infection curing . if so  ,this study could not lend support to this hypothesis .
Secondly, even the study could bolster the hypothesis , in the final recommendation ,it is unfair that the arguer recommends all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics .obviously ,the arguer amounts muscle injuries to muscle strain .common sense tells us .lots of factor could contribute to muscle strain ,like cold ,lack of Calcium ,and so on




,imagine that if a patients suffers a muscle strain because of cold ,then take  antibiotics as a part of their treatment will make no sense in pain removing and recuperation time reducing.
In conclusion ,only the arguer could provide more evidence to prove the only factor contribute to difference of recuperation time is antibiotics and rule out other possibilities which could be explainable to muscle pain .then the recommendation of arguer could stay persuasive.
空下来的部分就是我没有写完的部分，30分钟内果然只写道了512 这似乎是极限了，可是我发现非常详细的来写的话，这个时间是根本不够的，我现在想，是不是所有的ARGU应该是抓住最重要的几点，每个批驳点举一到二个反例就是比较适当的？ 当然 我在写这篇的时候，开头找错了一些问题，也耽误了不少时间 囧 可是 难保考试的时候不会犯错误啊 ............你们怎么看 ARGU的写作这个问题？

xiongnashiongUID：2359406

自己先改一遍 呵呵
In the argument above , the arguer claims that patients should take antibiotics in their treatment when get diagnosed with muscle strain . however , close scrutiny reveal that the facts listed in the argument could lend little support to the conclusion.

First of all ,the arguer claims that doctors' hypothesis has been proved by （the）study , but this claims suffers from several fallacies .
the arguer cites the facts that patients in the first group recuperation time was 40% quicker that typically expected ,and patients in second group average recuperation time was not reduce .however ,the arguer fails to explain how long a time is typically expected as long as how long a time is "average recuperation time" ,it is entirely possible that "typically expected" time :maybe 3 months expected by the doctor of first group ,is not amount to "average recuperation time" :maybe 5 months according to the experience of the doctor of second group . moreover ,the arguer fails to consider some other factors which might affect the result . such as sex ,do ration of women are equal in two groups? if not ,since in fact women usually recover slower than men, maybe larger male ratio in first group devotes to a quicker restoration, not antibiotics.  ( means we could not know which group of people recover quicker .）（ in short , to rule out this possibility , the arguer has to provide a shared standard of recuperation time rather than a vague conception.）太罗嗦了 去掉 应该多花点笔墨来具体话到底是什么问题会更有收获 个人感觉)
Secondly .even in the comparison , two group of patients all share a common standard ,no matter sex ,age ,or expected recuperation time, the arguer still unfairly contribute antibiotics as the reason for quicker recuperation time in first group . as we know from the facts , doctor who be responsible for the first group is a one who specializes in sports medicine ,while the other doctor is just a general physician , so it is entirely possible that doctor Dr .Newland could be more experienced in dealing with sport injuries ,like muscle injuries  .and he could usually adopt better means to guild patients ,such as give a appropriate  diet and advise of  sleeping hours .( if this is the case , than disparity of doctors could contribute to the difference of recuperation time rather then antibiotics)时间不够的话这句话要去掉的好. moreover , even the doctors are equal experienced in dealing with muscle injuries ,we could note that in the second group ,patients have eaten sugar pills ,although this material is widely used in compared experiments ,however , the arguer has to provide more evidence to point out sugar will have nothing to do with muscle injuries  ,（in addition .the arguer asserts that this study could prove a hypothesis that secondary infections play a important role in healing delay . however , in the study the arguer cited , no proof could indicate that these patients are suffering a secondary infections. it is highly possible that antibiotics just play its role in curing muscle injuries. 时间不够的话，这样的小问题就不会批了）
Finally, even the study could bolster the hypothesis , in the final recommendation ,it is unfair that the arguer recommends all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics .obviously ,the arguer amounts muscle injuries to muscle strain .in fact .lots of factors could contribute to muscle strain ,such as cold ,lack of Calcium ,and so on .
,imagine that if a patients suffers a muscle pain because of lack of calcium . then ingest enough calcium, rather  then antibiotics , could be the only access to removing muscle pain in this situation .
In conclusion ,the arguer should provide more evidence to justify the study result ,and give a more reasonable advise to the public.
改完之后 自己感觉比较满意了 应该充分的做到的 detail 不啰嗦 可是字数还是达到了580 因为在里面做了太多的 even if 这样的让步，批的比较的细，如果到时候实在没有时间，应该会
恩 如果去掉可以不写的东东的话 字数就在490 这应该是一个可以达到的数字。
这就是这几天看ARGU觉得应该的趋势 ，大家狠拍啊 呵呵

woodmanUID：161906

In the argument above, the arguer claims thatpatients should take antibiotics in their treatment when get diagnosed withmuscle strain. However, close scrutiny reveal that the facts listed in theargument could lend little support to the conclusion.开头简洁，呵呵，偶稀饭

First of all ,the arguer claims that doctors' hypothesis(什么假说) has been provedby （the）study , but this claims suffers fromseveral fallacies. the arguer cites the facts that patients in the first grouprecuperation time was 40% quicker that typically expected ,and patients insecond group average recuperation time was not reduce .however ,the arguerfails to explain how long a time is typically expected as long (well，没看明白你这句，前后是并列关系还是？) as howlong a time is "average recuperation time", it is entirely possiblethat "typically expected" time:（不要乱用符号） maybe 3 months expected by thedoctor of first group ,is not amount to "average recuperation time":maybe 5 months according to the experience of the doctor of second group. 这个句子你再修改，看的人很头大啊moreover ,the arguer fails to consider some otherfactors which might affect the result. such as sex ,doration of women are equal in two groups? if not ,since in fact women usuallyrecover slower than men, maybe larger male ratio in first group devotes to aquicker restoration, not antibiotics. 写这个之前你要说明男女有什么差别，否则有点无厘头 。(means we could not know which group of people recover quicker .）（in short , to rule out this possibility , the arguer has to provide a sharedstandard of recuperation time rather than a vague conception.）太罗嗦了去掉应该多花点笔墨来具体话到底是什么问题会更有收获个人感觉) ---同意      

Secondly .even in the comparison , two group ofpatients all share a common standard ,no matter sex ,age ,or expectedrecuperation time, the arguer still unfairly contribute antibiotics as thereason for quicker recuperation time in first group. as we know from the facts, doctor who be responsible for the first group is a one who specializes insports medicine ,while the other doctor is just a general physician , so it isentirely possible that doctor Dr .Newland could be more experienced in dealingwith sport injuries ,like muscle injuries  .and he could usuallyadopt better means to guild patients, such as give aappropriate  diet and advise of  sleeping hours .( if thisis the case , than disparity of doctors could contribute to the difference ofrecuperation time rather then antibiotics)时间不够的话这句话要去掉的好.moreover , even the doctors are equal experienced in dealing with muscleinjuries ,we could note that in the second group ,patients have eaten sugarpills ,although this material is widely used incompared experiments ,however（although与however不要同时使用）, thearguer has to provide more evidence to point out sugar will have nothing to dowith muscle injuries  ,（in addition .the arguer asserts that thisstudy could prove a hypothesis that secondary infections play a important rolein healing delay . however , in the study the arguer cited , no proof couldindicate that these patients are suffering a secondary infections. it is highlypossible that antibiotics just play its role in curing muscle injuries. 时间不够的话，这样的小问题就不会批了）即使有时间，也不能把括号里这些内容放到这一段。每一段要做到说一个事，说明白，就ok了，不要搞得杂乱。

Finally, even the study could bolster the hypothesis, in the final recommendation , it is unfair that the arguer recommends all thepatients with muscle strain should take antibiotics .obviously , the argueramounts muscle injuries to muscle strain .in fact .lots of factors could contribute to(cause) muscle strain ,such as cold ,lack of Calcium(确定这些能导致肌肉劳损吗？) ,and so on .imagine that if a patients suffers a muscle pain because oflack of calcium . then ingest enough calcium, rather  thenantibiotics , could be the only access to removing muscle pain in thissituation .这一段没有什么逻辑啊，你写的是：即使那个医生的假说（二次感染使肌肉劳损的病人迅速康复）被这个研究证实是真的，也不能将肌肉受伤等同于肌肉劳损。接着，你说很多因素导致肌肉劳损，不如感冒或缺钙。你觉得这样是不是有点风牛马不相及啊？

In conclusion ,the arguer should provide moreevidence to justify the study result ,and give a more reasonable advise to thepublic.结尾太简单了，你要指出作者应该怎么做才能增强说服力。
呵呵，没有看过你以前的argu，所以不知道你说的风格突变具体是什么。限时能写出这种水平的文，很不错哦，羡慕一个先。
提几个小建议：
1.含糊不清的词或句，不如不用。记住你是在驳斥别人，而不是制造悬念引人入胜。
2.每一段说一个事，不要把几件事糅杂在一起，看着觉得混乱
3.段内的逻辑也是值得重视的

[ 本帖最后由 woodman 于 2007-8-7 16:22 编辑 ]