argument51

barretshaoUID: 2449682

第一次发..请见谅

In the argument, the author recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment for the reason that taking antibiotics could reduce the healing time. To support the recommendation, the author points out that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain and cites a study that recuperation time of the group which patients took antibiotics regularly through the treatment quicker than those who took sugar pills. The recommendation cotains several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing.


To begin with, the author assumes unfairly that secondary infections must happen in muscle strain patients based solely on the patients' long-term suspicion. It is possible that muscle strain patients are not easy infecting secondly.

Even assuming that secondary infections might happen in muscle strain patients, the author overlooks a myriad of other possible necessary reasons for the quicker healing group in the study. Perhaps the first group patients were younger and healthier than the other group. Or perhaps the difference between two doctors leads to the different recuperation time. Generally, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine might be more adept or experienced at muscle strain than the general physician. Accordingly, it is possible that the first group's recuperation time is shorter than second group's based on this reason rather than the effect of antibiotics. In short, without accounting for other factors that might contribute to the quicker healing, the author cannot justify the claim that antibiotics help patients reduce recuperation time.

Even if the author can substantiate the foregoing assumptions, the author overlooks the possibility that antibiotics might bring some side-effects to the patients. A lot of medicines have side effect and it is possible that antibiotics have some unknown chronic side effects. Without ruling out these possibilities, it is dangerous for the patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

Rather than relying solely on the questionable study, the author should provide direct evidence that secondary infections might happen in muscle strain patients. To better assess the accuracy of recommendation, it would be useful to know detail information about both two groups patients. To evaluate the author's recommendation more efficiently, we would need more information concerning all the effects which antibiotics would bring.

[ 本帖最后由 barretshao 于 2008-2-15 17:46 编辑 ]

ragingfireUID: 186932

In the argument, the author recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment for the reason that taking antibiotics could reduce the healing time. To support the recommendation, the author points out that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain and cites a study that recuperation time of the group in which patients took antibiotics regularly through the treatment quicker recover faster than those who took sugar pills. The recommendation cotains several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing.感觉太长了，时间来得及么？

To begin with, the author assumes unfairly that secondary infections must happen in muscle strain patients based solely on the patients' long-term suspicion. It is possible that muscle strain patients are not easy infecting secondly.这个太短了，不如不写了

Even assuming that secondary infections might happen in muscle strain patients, the author overlooks a myriad of other possible necessary reasons for the quicker healing group in the study. Perhaps the first group patients were younger and healthier than the other group. Or perhaps the difference between two doctors leads to the different recuperation time. Generally, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine might be more adept or experienced at muscle strain than the general physician. Accordingly, it is possible that the first group's recuperation time is shorter than second group's based on this reason rather than the effect of antibiotics. In short, without accounting for other factors that might contribute to the quicker healing, the author cannot justify the claim that antibiotics help patients reduce recuperation time.这一段没问题，很深入

Even if the author can substantiate the foregoing assumptions, the author overlooks the possibility that antibiotics might bring some side-effects to the patients. A lot of medicines have side effect and it is possible that antibiotics have some unknown chronic side effects. Without ruling out these possibilities, it is dangerous for the patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.
Rather than relying solely on the questionable study, the author should provide direct evidence that secondary infections might happen in muscle strain patients. To better assess the accuracy of recommendation, it would be useful to know detail information about both two groups patients. To evaluate the author's recommendation more efficiently, we would need more information concerning all the effects which antibiotics would bring.总结的比较全面

这篇文章还是不错的，后两点攻击的也比较深入。缺点是模板痕迹很严重。不过我也没什么好方法，有空可以和楼主讨论下

beetle1986UID: 2431214

In the argument, the author recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment for the reason that taking antibiotics could reduce the healing time. To support the recommendation, the author points out that (the) secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain and cites a study that recuperation time of the group which patients took antibiotics regularly through the treatment quicker than those who took sugar pills. The recommendation cotains (contains) several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing.To begin with, the author assumes unfairly (unfairly assumes) that secondary infections must happen in muscle strain patients based solely on the patients' long-term suspicion. It is possible that muscle strain patients are not easy infecting secondly.(太短了吧，不管怎么样，多扯几句吧)Even assuming (even if) that secondary infections might (would 让步就让到底) happen in muscle strain patients, the author overlooks a myriad of other possible necessary reasons for the quicker healing group in the study. Perhaps the first group patients were younger and healthier than the other group. Or perhaps the difference between two doctors leads to the different recuperation time. Generally, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine might be more adept or experienced at muscle strain than the general physician. Accordingly, it is possible that the first group's recuperation time is shorter than second group's based on this reason rather than the effect of antibiotics. In short, without accounting for other factors that might contribute to the quicker healing, the author cannot justify the claim that antibiotics help patients reduce recuperation time.Even if the author can substantiate the foregoing assumptions, the author overlooks the possibility that antibiotics might bring some side-effects to the patients. A lot of medicines have side effect and it is possible that antibiotics have some unknown chronic side effects. Without ruling out these possibilities, it is dangerous for the patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.Rather than relying solely on the questionable study, the author should provide direct evidence that secondary infections might happen in muscle strain patients. To better assess the accuracy of recommendation, it would be useful to know detail information about both two groups’ patients. To evaluate the author's recommendation more efficiently, we would need more information concerning all the effects which antibiotics would bring.


按猴哥的分析写的，结构应该没什么问题
主要是各论证段最好均衡一点