argument51(Aero小组)

liruixinsnakeUID: 2373729

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：356          用时：00:30:00          日期：2008-2-13 22:28:30

In this analysis, citing the result of a experiment of two groups, which indicate that the people who are suffering muscle strain taking antibiotics regularly heal quicker than those who do not, the author reaches the conclusion that the secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. While it seems somewhat convincing, a careful examination of this argument reveals it suffers form several critic flaws.

To begin with, there is no description of how the patients injured and whether they are severe or not. In that the conclusion is the connection between the secondary infections and the severe muscle strain, without such description of the patients we cannot conclude that assertion.

Secondly, since the patients of the two groups may not injure at the same level, the result of the experiment is open to doubt. Without more information, it is entirely possible that the patients in the second group are more severe than the first ones. It is no wondering that their average healing time is much later.  What’s more, we do not know that whether the other factors of the two groups are the same such as the foods provided to them at this period of time. Therefore, without taking into account these necessary factors and more evidence to rule out this possibility, we cannot be persuaded that the result is the case.

Thirdly, there is a vital hypothesis that the author assume the antibiotics are only directing at preventing the infections and there is no influence at all to the patients' muscles. It is possible that the recuperation is attributed to the fact, which, this medicine has the ingredient that will enhance the patient's muscle’s healing ability, but not because the effecting of preventing the muscle from being infected. Thus, we cannot believe the author's conclusion.

To sum up, this argument lacks credibility because the experimental result cited in the analysis cannot lend strong support to what the author asserts. Unless the author provides more evidence to indicate that the experiment is well conducted and all the patients are severe injured, the author's concerning about these issues is grounded.

dahuadebaobaoUID: 2441571

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：356          用时：00:30:00          日期：2008-2-13 22:28:30In this analysis, citing the result of a experiment of two groups, which indicate that the people who are suffering muscle strain taking antibiotics regularly heal quicker than those who do not, the author reaches the conclusion that the secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. (对题目的理解失误：这个不是题目得出的结论，而是题目开头就提出的假设，题目的结论应该是一个建议：肌肉拉伤用抗生素)While it seems somewhat convincing, a careful examination of this argument reveals it suffers form several critic （ critical） flaws.To begin with, there is no description of how the patients injured and whether they are severe or not.(怎么拉伤的重要么？是否严重重要么？只要是拉伤病人，只要是严重程度两个小组一样就可以了，所以攻击点模糊) In that the conclusion is the connection between the secondary infections and the severe muscle strain, without such description of the patients we cannot conclude that assertion.Secondly, since the patients of the two groups may not injure at the same level, (这个表达确切么？伤在同一个水平上？。。。)the result of the experiment is open to doubt. Without more information, it is entirely possible that the patients in the second group are more severe than the first ones. It is no wondering that their average healing time is much later.  What’s more, we do not know that whether the other factors of the two groups are the same such as the foods provided to them at this period of time. （叙述不清楚，食物不同又怎样呢？没说明白对肌肉拉伤治疗的影响啊，这里应说明某些食物对痊愈也是有影响的）Therefore, without taking into account these necessary factors and more evidence to rule out this possibility, we cannot be persuaded that the result is the case. Thirdly, there is a vital hypothesis that the author assume the antibiotics are only directing at preventing the infections and there is no influence at all to the patients' muscles. It is possible that the recuperation is attributed to the fact, which, this medicine has the ingredient that will enhance the patient's muscle’s healing ability, but not because the effecting of preventing the muscle from being infected. Thus, we cannot believe the author's conclusion.（这个攻击点挺新颖，学习中：）To sum up, this argument lacks credibility because the experimental result cited in the analysis cannot lend strong support to what the author asserts. Unless the author provides more evidence to indicate that the experiment is well conducted and all the patients are severe injured, the author's concerning about these issues is grounded.（unground）

liruixinsnakeUID: 2373729

thanks ~!

Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain

还有 最后一句话 结构是： Unless。。。。 the author's concerning about the issues is grounded.  不应该是ungrounded 吧？！

其他所有建议我都接受并迅速改之  


非常万分致感谢之 狠拍哈！

barretshaoUID: 2449682

题目：ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter.
修改。。批改错了莫怪啊

In this analysis, citing the result of a experiment of two groups, which indicate that the people who are suffering muscle strain taking antibiotics regularly heal quicker than those who do not, the author reaches the conclusion that the secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. While it seems somewhat convincing, a careful examination of this argument reveals it suffers form several critic flaws.(逻辑顺序应该是suspect that secondary infections...---->through preliminary results of a study of ....---->conclusion.所以我觉得第一段没有把逻辑顺序写明确)

（我觉得攻击顺序应该先主后次，先前提后论证过程，如果precondition不能成立，那么后面的也没有用。所以我觉得第一段应该先攻击前提）

To begin with, there is no description of how the patients injured and whether they are severe or not. In that the conclusion is the connection between the secondary infections and the severe muscle strain, without such description of the patients we cannot conclude that assertion.（这个可以和攻击前提的合并，因为都是对precondition的攻击，即便前提成立，那也是对于SEVERE的判断，而本文结论的则未说明。。所以我觉得severe 还是有必要提一下的）

Secondly, since the patients of the two groups may not injure at the same level, the result of the experiment is open to doubt. Without more information, it is entirely possible that the patients in the second group are more severe than the first ones. It is no wondering that their average healing time is much later.  What¡¯s more, we do not know that whether the other factors of the two groups are the same such as the foods provided to them at this period of time.（我觉得食物这一点太牵强了。） Therefore, without taking into account these necessary factors and more evidence to rule out this possibility, we cannot be persuaded that the result is the case.
（我觉得实验中存在比较大的缺陷应该是两个医生的区别：一个是sport medicine应该比较擅长muscle，而另一个这是general physician）

Thirdly, there is a vital hypothesis that the author assume the antibiotics are only directing at preventing the infections and there is no influence at all to the patients' muscles. It is possible that the recuperation is attributed to the fact, which, this medicine has the ingredient that will enhance the patient's muscle¡¯s healing ability, but not because the effecting of preventing the muscle from being infected. Thus, we cannot believe the author's conclusion.

我觉得可以攻击一下antibiotics的side-effect

To sum up, this argument lacks credibility because the experimental result cited in the analysis cannot lend strong support to what the author asserts. Unless the author provides more evidence to indicate that the experiment is well conducted and all the patients are severe injured, the author's concerning about these issues is grounded.
我觉得内容有些单薄。可以将一些possibility写的具体化。文章好像逻辑主线不强。

beetle1986UID: 2431214

In this analysis, (by) citing the result of a experiment of two groups, which indicate (indicates 猜测这个it指代的是experiment吧) that the people who are suffering (from) muscle strain taking antibiotics regularly heal quicker than those who do not, the author reaches the conclusion that the secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. While it seems somewhat convincing, a careful examination of this argument reveals it suffers form (from) several critic flaws.

To begin with, there is no description of how the patients injured and whether they are severe or not. In that the conclusion is the connection between the secondary infections and the severe muscle strain, without such description of the patients we cannot conclude that assertion. (这一段写的太简单了，中心句也不够突出。最好几个论证段均衡一点)

Secondly, since the patients of the two groups may not injure at the same level, the result of the experiment is open to doubt. Without more information, it is entirely possible that the patients in the second group are more severe than the first ones. It is no wondering that their average healing time is much later.  What’s more, we do not know that whether the other factors of the two groups are the same such as the foods provided to them at this period of time. Therefore, without taking into account these necessary factors and more evidence to rule out this possibility, we cannot be persuaded that the result is the case.

Thirdly, there is a vital hypothesis that (the author assume) (和前面的hypothesis重复，应该删去) the antibiotics are only directing at preventing the infections and there is no influence at all to the patients' muscles. It is possible that the recuperation is attributed to the fact, which, this medicine has the ingredient that will enhance the patient's muscle’s healing ability, but not because the effecting of preventing the muscle from being infected. Thus, we cannot believe the author's conclusion.

To sum up, this argument lacks credibility because the experimental result cited in the analysis cannot lend strong support to what the author asserts. Unless the author provides more evidence to indicate that the experiment is well conducted and all the patients are severe injured, the author's concerning about these issues is grounded.
你的三个攻击点是，二次感染只和严重的拉伤有关，两组病人的参数可能不同，抗生素可能不是用于二次感染而是由于其他原因加速康复。
我认为应该攻击的三个点是，1论断的前提是病人会发生二次感染，或有很大的可能发生。2 两组病人参数可能不同。 3 由于次感染会妨碍病人康复而要求病人服用抗生素。但抗生素除了防止感染外，还可能会带来其他问题，比如过敏的病人是不能服用抗生素的。

对于argument的攻击，一个题目可能会有很多个漏洞，由于时间有限，应该抓最主要的来攻击。另外，建议先写好提纲再写。