Argument51[Aero小组13次作业]

ragingfireUID: 186932

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."

    The newsletter recommends all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of the treatment in order to prevent secondary infections which might keep them from healing quickly. To bolster the recommendation the newsletter's author cites a recent study in which two groups of patients were compared. The author points out that in the study the average recuperation time of patients who took antibiotics was 40 percent quicker than typically expected, whereas that of the patients who did not take antibiotics was not significant reduced. I find this recommendation is specious on several grounds.

    First of all, the patients of the two groups are not comparable without collecting their personal data. For all we know the health conditions of the two groups people are not necessarily the same. For that matter, perhaps the patients from the first group are younger and healthier than those from the second group, and thus they can recover faster. Unless the author can clearly clarify this condition, it makes no sense to compare the results of the two groups.

    Secondly, the recommendation relies on the assumption that most of the patients would suffer secondary infections. However this need not be the case. There is no evidence in this recommendation which can support the assumption. All we have is merely a mentioned suspect ion. So it is entirely possible that the secondary infections have nothing to do with the recuperation time.

    Thirdly, the author hastily attributes the reduction of recuperation time to the use of antibiotics. There might be other factors such as the difference in the ability of the doctors and the severity of the strain. For all we know that a specialized sports medicine doctor might has more experience in treating muscle stains than a general physician. And the patients who go to the specialist might have acute injury, while those who go to a generalist might have chronic ills. If the author cannot rule out these possibilities, I would remain unconvinced that it is the antibiotics that help patients heal quickly.

    In sum, the recommendation is not well supported. To justify it, the author must provide the evidence that the patients from the two groups are in the same physical conditions. To better assess the recommendation I need more information about the percentage of people with secondary infections. It would be also helpful to know the detailed treatment methods of the two doctors.

saavedroUID: 2423190

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."

   

    The newsletter recommends all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of the treatment in order to prevent secondary infections which might keep them from healing quickly.(本句中which后面修饰的部分不是补充修饰infections的啊,如果想这么写应该用非限定定语从句，或者在which的前面加成分, -antibiotics which.............) To bolster the recommendation the newsletter's author cites a recent study in which two groups of patients were compared. The author points out that in the study the average recuperation time of patients who took antibiotics was 40 percent quicker than typically expected, whereas that of the patients who did not take antibiotics was not significant reduced. I find this recommendation is specious on several grounds.（开头长度比起下面正文每一段的段落来略显长了）

    First of all, the patients of the two groups are not comparable without collecting their personal data. For all we know the health conditions of the two groups people are not necessarily the same.（这里虽然点出来了两组对象健康状况不同，但是感觉这种说法很唐突：more brusque.因为题目中没有提到这一点，作为评论者提出这种观点的时候最好以客观和推测的口吻说出来，这就像四六级里正确答案永远是客观不主观，永远不会出现极端词汇等等的道理是一样的。特别的是这是主要论据之一，如果是一般的话语或是信息像楼主这么处理绝对没有问题。呵呵！！） For that matter, perhaps the patients from the first group are younger and healthier than those from the second group, and thus they can recover faster.（推测口吻使用虚拟语气更为合适） Unless the author can clearly clarify this condition, it makes no sense to compare the results of the two groups.

    Secondly, the recommendation relies on the assumption that most of the patients would suffer secondary infections. However this need not be the case. There is no evidence in this recommendation which can support the assumption. All we have is merely a mentioned suspection.（前面的All we have 做主语从句部分虽然成立，但是却没有明确的表达意思啊？） So it is entirely possible that the secondary infections have nothing to do with the recuperation time.

    Thirdly, the author hastily attributes the reduction of recuperation time to the use of antibiotics. There might be other factors such as the difference in the ability（capability     ability 是泛指能力，capability尤其指技术或者是方法上的实际能力潜质等等） of the doctors and the（删除the 改成 to the extent of） severity of the strain. For all we know that a specialized sports medicine doctor might has more experience in treating muscle stains than a general physician. (这里是合适的用法，因为是题目中没有提及的内容，完全可以用这种口吻叙述)And the patients who go to the specialist might have acute injury, while those who go to a generalist might have chronic ills. （这里想法很独特。呵呵 受到issue的专才和通才那个题的影响吧？ 呵呵）If the author cannot rule out these possibilities, I would remain unconvinced that it is the antibiotics that help patients heal quickly.

    In sum, the recommendation is not well supported. To justify it, the author must provide the evidence that the patients from the two groups are in （suffer from）the same physical conditions. To better assess the recommendation I need more information about the percentage of people with secondary infections. It would be also helpful to know the detailed treatment methods of the two doctors.



总体写的还真是不错，这应该是限时写作吧？感觉楼主有些地方没有展开来，不过好像有些赶时间似的。我在限时写作的时候也觉得很赶时间。。

[ 本帖最后由 saavedro 于 2008-2-17 15:47 编辑 ]

geyserUID: 2446453

    The newsletter recommends all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of the treatment in order to prevent secondary infections which might keep them from healing quickly. To bolster the recommendation the newsletter's author cites a recent study in which two groups of patients were compared. The author points out that in the study the average recuperation time of patients who took antibiotics was 40 percent quicker than typically expected, whereas that of the patients who did not take antibiotics was not significant reduced. I find this recommendation is specious on several grounds.

    First of all, the patients of the two groups are not comparable without collecting their personal data. For all we know (用法有点怪)the health conditions of the two groups people are not necessarily the same. For that matter, perhaps the patients from the first group are younger and healthier than those from the second group, and thus they can recover faster. Unless the author can clearly clarify this condition, it makes no sense to compare the results of the two groups.

    Secondly, the recommendation relies on the assumption that most of the patients would suffer secondary infections. However this need not be the case. There is no evidence in this recommendation which can support the assumption. All we have is merely a mentioned suspect ion. So it is entirely possible that the secondary infections have nothing to do with the recuperation time. (argu的批驳应该是顺序的吧~ 所以我觉得这一段应该放在开始时写~~)

    Thirdly, the author hastily attributes the reduction of recuperation time to the use of antibiotics. There might be other factors such as the difference in the ability of the doctors and the severity of the strain. For all we know that a specialized sports medicine doctor might has more experience in treating muscle stains than a general physician. And the patients who go to the specialist might have acute injury, while those who go to a generalist might have chronic ills. If the author cannot rule out these possibilities, I would remain unconvinced that it is the antibiotics that help patients heal quickly.

In sum, the recommendation is not well supported. To justify it, the author must provide the evidence that the patients from the two groups are in the same physical conditions. To better assess the recommendation I need more information about the percentage of people with secondary infections. It would be also helpful to know the detailed treatment methods of the two doctors.

感觉首段有点长啊~感觉北美范文这么用是因为他不限时后面可以写的很长,但是如果后面来不及写的话就有点头重脚轻的感觉~~

[ 本帖最后由 geyser 于 2008-2-17 20:17 编辑 ]