deleted

zhuzhuorUID: 2452739

deleted

1001storyUID: 2516918

n this argument, the author points out that a study was made: the first group of patients treated by Dr. Newland for muscle injuries took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment; the second group treated by Dr. Alton was given sugar pills instead of antibiotics. The author also points out that the average recuperation time of the first group was 40 percent quicker that typically expected, but the recuperation time of the second group was not significantly reduced. On the basis of this line of reasoning the author concludes that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This argument contains several critical flaws, which render it unconvincing. (有抄题目的感觉哈！在用词上稍微变下会好点！)

A threshold problem with the argument involves that the author does not provide enough information on the subjects of study. The author provides no evidence about the absolute number of patients who participate wthin the study and how the two groups of patients were injured. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that the two groups in this study are much different. Under this circumstance, comparing the recuperation time of the two groups of patients is meaningless.(是不是可以再具体点)

The argument also assumes unfairly that the difference of the average recuperation time is because of using antibiotics. The author ignores a host of other possible explanations for the recuperation time reduce -- such as Dr. Newland's treatment methods are much more effective than Dr. Alton's because Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine. Without ruling out all other possible explanations, the author cannot convince me that taking antibiotics as part of their treatment can help the patients recuperate.

Even if the antibiotics will help to reduce the average recuperation time, the author's claim that the secondary infections may keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain is unjustified. The author overlooks a myriad of other possible efforts of the antibiotics. Maybe antibiotics can help to turn what are generated during the recuperation process to be harmless, and help reduce the pains and mental stress of the patients. Without accounting for other factors that may contribute to the healing quickly after severe muscle strain, the author cannot justify his claim.(这段的让步体系很有力道哈)

Finally, even if the author can substantiate all of the foregoing assumptions, the author's assertion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics is still unwarranted. It is totally possible that some patients have some other diseases which do not allow the patients to take the antibiotics. The patients' treatments should be different from each other's.

In sum, the author's argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author should provide more information about the subjects of the study, and better evidence that the main effort of antibiotics is keeping patients from secondary infections.
第一篇很好了，我也发现ARGUMENT很容易带有模板的感觉哈！

小猪sisiUID: 2453484

In this argument, the author points out that a study was made: the first group of patients treated by Dr. Newland for muscle injuries took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment; the second group treated by Dr. Alton was given sugar pills instead of antibiotics. The author also points out that the average recuperation time of the first group was 40 percent quicker that typically expected, but the recuperation time of the second group was not significantly reduced. On the basis of this line of reasoning the author concludes that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This argument contains several critical flaws, which render it unconvincing.

A threshold problem with the argument involves that the author does not provide enough information on the subjects of study. The author provides no evidence about the absolute number of patients who participate in the study and how the two groups of patients were injured. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that the two groups in this study are much different. Under this circumstance, comparing the recuperation time of the two groups of patients is meaningless.

The argument also assumes unfairly that the difference of the average recuperation time is because of using antibiotics. The author ignores a host of other possible explanations for the recuperation time reduce -- such as Dr. Newland's treatment methods are much more effective than Dr. Alton's because Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine. Without ruling out all other possible explanations, the author cannot convince me that taking antibiotics as part of their treatment can help the patients recuperate.

Even if the antibiotics will help to reduce the average recuperation time, the author's claim that the secondary infections may keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain is unjustified. The author overlooks a myriad of other possible effort of the antibiotics. Maybe antibiotics can help to turn what are generated during the recuperation process to be harmless, and help reducing the pains and mental stress of the patients. Without accounting for other factors that may contribute to the healing quickly after severe muscle strain, the author cannot justify his claim.

Finally, even if the author can substantiate all of the foregoing assumptions, the author's assertion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics is still unwarranted. It is totally possible that some patients have some other diseases which do not allow the patients to take the antibiotics. The patients' treatments should be different from each other's.

In sum, the author's argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author should provide more information about the subjects of the study, and better evidence that the main effort of antibiotics is keeping patients from secondary infections.

不错！逻辑很清晰，只是感觉开头段可以在精炼一点，因为长度已经超过了某些主要段落。