argument51 jet小组第四次作业

teeweeUID: 2456185

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404
In this argument, the arguer recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. In addition, he cites the result of a study that the group, which took antibiotics regularly, treated by Dr. Newland recovered quicker than the group, which used sugar pills instead of antibiotics, treated by Dr. Alton. A careful examination of this argument reveals that this argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

The major problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to justify that the hypothesis, doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, can be proved by preliminary results of the study. If even if, granted that the study is efficient, we can not ensure that the hypothesis can be proved. The reason is the study can only illustrate that antibiotics is a medication which having good impact on muscle injury; and having good impact on muscle injury do not equal to having good impact on secondary infections. Even whether the secondary infections are existing among the patients is susceptible, so if the arguer really wants to justify the hypothesis, he or she need to proof that not only the infections are exist among the patients but also proof that the antibiotics used in the study having good impact on secondary infection.

Another assumption in short of legitimacy is result of the study. Because the result rests on two gratuitous assumptions, one is that the two groups of patient in the study are having the same property, the other one is that the two doctors having the same influence on the recuperation time of the two groups of the patients. It is easy to judge that the two assumptions mentioned above are open to doubt. On the one hand the ages of members of each group are inseparable with the recuperation time, on the other hand Dr. Newland is obviously more profession than Dr. Alton in curing muscle injuries. In order to make the study reasonable, the arguer should provide the makeup of the two groups and doing another study in which the two groups are curing by the same doctor.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands.

[ 本帖最后由 teewee 于 2008-2-13 12:21 编辑 ]

txjlionUID: 2445370

字数404
In this argument, the arguer recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. In addition, he cites the result of a study that the group, which took antibiotics regularly, treated by Dr. Newland recovered quicker than the group, which used sugar pills instead of antibiotics, treated by Dr. Alton. A careful examination of this argument reveals that this argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

The major problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to justify that the hypothesis, doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, can be proved by preliminary results of the study. If even if ？, granted that the study is efficient, we can not ensure that the hypothesis can be proved. The reason is the study can only illustrate that antibiotics is a medication which having good impact on muscle injury; and having good impact on muscle injury do not equal to having good impact on secondary infections. Even whether ？ the secondary infections are existing among the patients is susceptible, so if the arguer really wants to justify the hypothesis, he or she need to proof that not only the infections are exist among the patients but also proof that the antibiotics used in the study having good impact on secondary infection.

Another assumption in short of legitimacy is （the） result of the study. Because the result rests on two gratuitous assumptions, one is that the two groups of patient in the study are having the same property, the other one is that the two doctors having the same influence on the recuperation time of the two groups of the patients. It is easy to judge that the two assumptions mentioned above are open to doubt. On the one hand the ages of members of each group are inseparable with the recuperation time, on the other hand Dr. Newland is obviously more profession than Dr. Alton in curing muscle injuries. In order to make the study reasonable, the arguer should provide the makeup of the two groups and doing another study in which the two groups are curing by the same doctor.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands.

文章写得不错
一些插入语的前后和连词的前面没有标点，注意一下标点，考试的时候也会影响分数的