argument51 【7\8\9\10】AW作文小组 7.18

zoubinUID: 2501151

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: 431          TIME: 00:35:57          DATE: 2008-7-18 PM 05:08:05

This argument concludes that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics to prevent secondary infections. To support this conclusion, the arguer quotes the following study: with comparing two groups, first group uses antibiotics and the other uses sugar pills, the researchers find that patients in first group cure sooner. However, after carefully scrutinized, this study is too vague and questionable to lend enough support to the conclusion.

In the first place, a assumption upon which this conclusion depends is that secondary infections must occur. But the arguer offers no information about secondary infections, such as the percentage of occurring. Lacking such evidence, it's equally that little patients with muscle strain encounter secondary infections. For that matter, taking antibiotics may be not very necessary. In short, without providing more detailed information about secondary infections, the arguer can not make me bolster his conclusion.

In the second place, the study cited in this argument has a series of doubtful points. First, the details like number, age, healthy condition of the respondents in this study is known. So for example, if the number is small, how can the result in this study reflect the whole situations of all patients? Also the patients in first group taking antibiotics may have sound bodies, which can also cause the result of this survey. Besides, the arguer doesn't tell anything about these two doctors. Generally speaking, a special sports doctor may be well at treating muscle strain than a general physician, which may affect the result, but the arguer fails to consider this. Without considering and ruling out these alternative possible conditions, the arguer can not demonstrate his conclusion.

Last but not least, the arguer ignores some other factors which might undermine the credibility of his assertion. For instance, whether sugar pills can influence the treatment of muscle strain or not is unknown. Perhaps, sugar pills take a negative effect to the recuperation. Moreover, the arguer gives no data about the side effect of antibiotics. If the side effect is very significant, even antibiotics are effective to prevent secondary infections, we can not advise patients to take it.

In final analysis, as based on a host of unsounded assumptions or surveys, the conclusion can not be convincing as it stands. If the arguer wants to justify his assertion, he should know the probability of secondary infections among patients with muscle strain. When conduct a study, he should better choose doctors at similar lever and participants with the same features like age and health. Also different groups must take the same treatment except medicine in the same environment.

[ 本帖最后由 zoubin 于 2008-7-18 17:19 编辑 ]

DemiquaverUID: 203651

只超了5分钟，好羡慕啊……
我argu要超15分钟

把issue和argum贴一起吧，好找。
过会来学习学习

麻烦有空拍拍我的：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-859135-1-2.html

buctcontrolUID: 2392206

This argument concludes that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics to prevent secondary infections. To support this conclusion, the arguer quotes the following study: with comparing two groups, first group uses antibiotics and the other uses sugar pills, the researchers find that patients in first group cure sooner. However, after carefully scrutinized, this study is too vague and questionable to lend enough support to the conclusion.

In the first place, a assumption upon which this conclusion depends is that secondary infections must occur. But the arguer offers no information about secondary infections, such as the percentage of occurring. Lacking such evidence, it's equally that little patients with muscle strain encounter secondary infections. For that matter, taking antibiotics may be not very necessary. In short, without providing more detailed information about secondary infections, the arguer can not make me bolster his conclusion.

In the second place, the study cited in this argument has a series of doubtful points. First, the details like number, age, healthy condition of the respondents in this study is known(是不是反了。。). So for example, if the number is small, how can the result in this study reflect the whole situations of all patients? Also the patients in first group taking antibiotics may have sound bodies（sound bodies什么意思）, which can also cause the result of this survey. Besides, the arguer doesn't tell anything about these two doctors. Generally speaking, a special sports doctor may be well at（be good at/be well in） treating muscle strain than a general physician, which may affect the result, but the arguer fails to consider this. Without considering and ruling out these alternative possible conditions, the arguer can not demonstrate his conclusion.

Last but not least, the arguer ignores some other factors which might undermine the credibility of his assertion. For instance, whether sugar pills can influence the treatment of muscle strain or not is unknown. Perhaps, sugar pills take a negative effect to the recuperation. Moreover, the arguer gives no data about the side effect of antibiotics. If the side effect is very significant, even antibiotics are effective to prevent secondary infections, we can not advise patients to take it.

In final analysis, as based on a host of unsounded assumptions or surveys, the conclusion can not be convincing as it stands. If the arguer wants to justify his assertion, he should know the probability of secondary infections among patients with muscle strain. When conduct a study（此处又不明白）, he should better choose doctors at similar lever and participants(participate) with the same features like age and health. Also different groups must take the same treatment except medicine in the same environment.
小结：有少数地方表述没让我明白，我觉得是我才疏学浅孤陋寡闻，请教。：）
         文章思路很清晰，我觉得按原文顺序或是按轻重顺序都可以把第二段往后放，你觉得呢？
         用词我挑了两处，我语言也不好，或许有疏漏错误见谅。
         关于错误分析我觉得也都分析到了，有时间的话可以扩展具体化。
         这么短时间完成这么高质量的文章，还是赞啊！

zoubinUID: 2501151

unknow写成known拉
sound 可以用作adj，表示健康的意思。
be well at是我用错啦，该用better
不明之处是说：如果要进行一下研究，不同分组的医生水平应一致，参与者特征要相同。participant = participator
至于顺序，我的本意是：先论证会不会发生二次感染，其次即使发生二次感染，抗生素是否有效，最后简单讨论其他因素。