argument51 [Jet小组]第四次作业

dreamstringUID: 2389201

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: 430        

Citing a study of two groups of patients, the author draws a conclusion that it is proved secondary infections has a negative influence on patients’ recuperation, and therefore, all patients are hurt by muscle strain should take antibiotics. However, analyzing logically and rationally, the author’s reasoning is full of flaws and the conclusion is dubious.

First of all, the author does not give any evidence to show that the two groups of patients are all caught secondary infections, and they are all hurt in a similar level. It is possible that some patients in Dr. Newland’s group are hurt by secondary infections in a low level or even they are not infected at all. In this situation, we can believe that patients in this group are inherited heal quickly but the antibiotics’ function, for they might be not hurt so deep compared to Dr. Alton’s group.

Secondly, the difference between the two doctors lead to the conclusion is unstable, even though the two groups’ patients are all infected in the similar level. As the author describes, Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine, while Dr. Alton is a general physician. It is possible that it is Dr. Newland’s professional knowledge and skills in sports medicine that accelerates his patients’ healing but antibiotics’ function. On the contrary, as a general physician, Dr. Alton does not have such ascendancy. Therefore, I cannot be convinced that patients of Dr. Newland’s group heal quickly just because their secondary infections are constricted by antibiotics.

What’s more, even though the antibiotic does help patients heal quickly, the author cannot assert all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics, for the author neglects that there might be negative influence on patients by taking antibiotics. It is reasonable to believe that the antibiotic harms patients much more. If the author does not provide evidences to prove that antibiotics do not harm patients or the negative influence is little enough to ignore it, the author cannot claim that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics.

In sum, the whole evidence the author cites is full of flaws and the author’s reasoning is lack of logical thinking. To improve the argument, the author should provide evidences to show that patients of two groups are all hurt by secondary infection and they are all hurt in similar level, and the two doctors exert same therapy methods. Otherwise I cannot be convinced that it is secondary infections that hindered patients’ recuperation. Moreover, the author should also prove that the antibiotic have little negative influence on patients, otherwise they could not take it.

月亮熬的汤UID: 2382325

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: 430        

Citing a study of two groups of patients, the author draws a conclusion that it is proved (that) secondary infections has(have) a negative influence on patients’ recuperation, and therefore, all patients are(语法不对,删掉are) hurt by muscle strain should take antibiotics. However, analyzing logically and rationally, the author’s reasoning is full of flaws and the conclusion is dubious.(这句不错)

First of all, the author does not give any evidence to show that the two groups of patients are all caught(suffering) secondary infections, and they are all hurt in a similar level. It is possible that some patients in Dr. Newland’s group are hurt by secondary infections in a low level or even they are not infected at all. In this situation, we can believe that patients in this group are(will) inherited(inheritedly) heal quickly but(意思不对,应为even without) the antibiotics’ function, for they might be not hurt so deep(deeply) compared to Dr. Alton’s group.

Secondly, the difference between the two doctors lead(leading) to the conclusion is unstable, even though the two groups’ patients are all infected in the similar level. As the author describes, Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine, while Dr. Alton is a general physician. It is possible that it is Dr. Newland’s professional knowledge and skills in sports medicine that accelerates his patients’ healing but (not) antibiotics’ function. On the contrary, as a general physician, Dr. Alton does not have such ascendancy. Therefore, I cannot be convinced that patients of Dr. Newland’s group heal quickly just because their secondary infections are constricted by antibiotics.

What’s more, even though(应该是even if吧) the antibiotic does help the patients (to) heal quickly, the author cannot assert (加that,从句连词不能少)all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics, for the author neglects that there might be negative influence on patients by taking antibiotics. It is reasonable to believe that the antibiotic harms patients much more(这个more是和什么的比较级呢?有些奇怪). If the author does not provide evidences to prove that antibiotics do not harm patients or the negative influence is little enough to ignore it, the author cannot claim that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics.(推荐使用单词:副作用 side-effect)

In sum, the whole evidence the author cites is full of flaws and the author’s reasoning is (in) lack of logical thinking. To improve the argument, the author should provide evidences to show that patients of two groups are all hurt by secondary infection and they are all hurt in similar level(levels), and the two doctors exert same therapy methods. Otherwise I cannot be convinced that it is secondary infections that hindered patients’ recuperation. Moreover, the author should also prove that the antibiotic have little negative influence on patients, otherwise they could not take it.

小结:
很多句子都有两个主语,缺少从句连接词或者动词的变换,这个问题比较大,希望注意