Argument51 njuzhshao的练习，一周考试,求改,每改必回.谢

njuzhshaoUID??2258118

题目：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."
字数：409          用时：0:30:00          日期：2007/8/8
The only evidence provided in this argument is the results of the study of two groups of patients. While it seems to me not aptly support
the ultimate conclusion, for several points exist vaguely stated in the process of the study itself and the reasoning of applying the results
by the author, about which I am to argue.
To do this experiment, the hospital set two groups of patients: one for test and the other for comparison. It is mostly scientificly set but I
would point out that at least an uncontroled condition exists: the doctors. Two groups differs from their doctors, one Dr. Newland in
sports medicine and the other Dr. Alton, a general physician. We cannot find the evidences which confirm the same treatment they gave
to their patients besides the only controlled one, usage of antibiotics. A sports medicine doctor may have a series of specialized recovery
massage for his/her patients. Nor does the author explain the patients' randomicity, which may be selective according to the difference in
the doctors' major. More serious muscle injured patients might be willing to bear a higher price to see a specialized doctor, and influence
the randomicity.
Furthermore, to rulling out the possibiliy of psychological, the experiment designed a trick, that is to have the patients in comparison
group take sugar pillars for substitution. While it is also the recognation of the difference in the two doctors may bring in new
psychological influence. Just think about what if the patients in the comparison group were told at the very beginning that what they
were eating is only sugar: the patients probably knew at first the level of the their doctor. The caution in 'pillar trick' is counteracted by
the negligence in  'doctors'.
Another question lies in the generalization process, where no full evidences could justify the rationality of the author's generalization
from the results, which come from the experiments on the samples who were suffering severe muscle strain, to the conclusion for all the
patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. Different extent of strain may point to different treatments, and it is the commonsense,
especially when it comes to medicine, one that may cause sharp effect in our health. Doses should be controled when ultilizing in patients
and in some cases when the symptom is light enough, antibotics effect little and there is no demond for it. More serious by-effects may
exist in the usage of antibotics on pregnant women, children, the elder and other fragile groups. And thus it is dangerous for every
patient to have a same advise in antibotics.
To sum up, the conclusion of the author seems to be too hasty. A scrutiny in both the two process may contribute to a better answer to
the quetion whether antibotics should be used.

wangqingtoeflUID??2189040

不好意思．．．．写了那么多．居然一个后退什么都没了．．．．．

真的要疯了．．

nqjiuUID??2357309

The only evidence provided in this argument is the results of the study of two groups of patients. While(去掉while，第二句怎么看都不像一个句子) it seems to me not aptly support the ultimate conclusion, for several points exist vaguely stated(points exist vaguely stated,什么意思？stated在这不合适吧) in the process of the study itself and the reasoning of applying the results by the author, about which I am to argue.

To do this experiment, the hospital set two groups of patients: one for test and the other for comparison. It is mostly scientificly set but I would point out that at least an uncontroled condition exists: the doctors. Two groups differs from their doctors, one Dr. Newland in sports medicine and the other Dr. Alton, a general physician. We cannot find the evidences(evidence不可数) which confirm the same treatment they gave to their patients besides the only controlled one, usage of antibiotics. A sports medicine doctor may have a series of specialized recovery massage for his/her patients.(按摩有助于恢复) Nor does the author explain the patients' randomicity, which(which指代什么？patients or patients' randonicity?不清) may be selective according to the difference in the doctors' major. More serious muscle injured patients might be willing to bear a higher price to see a specialized doctor, and influence the randomicity.(serious修饰muscle还是injured? 就按照严重理解，这一点的论证切题不好。只是说明病人根据受伤程度的不同的选择会影响到study的随机性，没有进一步说明这种不同会对结果带来什么影响。换句话说，只是停留在表面的不同不够深入。)

Furthermore, to rulling out the possibiliy of psychological, the experiment designed a trick, that is to have the patients in comparison group take sugar pillars for substitution. While it is also the recognation(recognition? what is this mean?) of the difference in the two doctors may bring in new psychological influence. Just think about what if the patients in the comparison group were told at the very beginning that what they were eating is only sugar: the patients probably knew at first the level of the their doctor. (how to know the level of the 'doctor'?) The caution in 'pillar trick' is counteracted by the negligence in  'doctors'.(although the patients believed they were taking the antibiotics,文中给出此信息，此处去假设他们一开始就被告知他们吃得是sugar,不太合适吧？)(pill or pillar?)(这一段看不太懂，是说pill trick为了消减某种心理上的影响，但同时可能带来其他心理上的影响？后面的解释我实在是没看懂...)

Another question lies in the generalization process, where no full evidences could justify the rationality of the author's generalization from the results, which come from the experiments on the samples who were suffering severe muscle strain, to the conclusion for all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. Different extent of strain may point to different treatments, and it is the commonsense, especially when it comes to medicine, one that may cause sharp effect in our health. Doses should be controled when ultilizing(utilizing?) in patients and in some cases when the symptom is light enough(light enough,怪怪的),(分号或连接词) antibotics effect little and there is no demond for it. More serious by-effects may exist in the usage of antibotics on pregnant women, children, the elder and other fragile groups. And thus it is dangerous for every
patient to have a same advise in antibotics(antibiotics).(这段写得不错，抗生素的适用性及副作用，很充分)

To sum up, the conclusion of the author seems to be too hasty. A scrutiny in both the two process may contribute to a better answer to the quetion whether antibotics should be used.

nqjiuUID??2357309

还有一点可以说得：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. 抗生素和secondary infections... how prove？