argument 51 【7\8\9\10】 第一次作业

sstonehuUID: 2379503

单词 452
      The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making comparison of the tow group of patients, who are treated by different doctors and take different medicine, one group take antibiotics therefore shorter recuperation time, while another group take sugar pills and subsequently the usual recuperation time, the argument that muscle strained patient should take antibiotic for treatment seems logical.

      However, this hypothesis is failing to consider other possible alternatives to the difference on recuperation time besides the antibiotic. Such alternatives may include the physical conditions of the patients, the dissimilar treatment from different doctors, or the effect sugar pills may take.

      First of all, it’s possible the physical individual differences of patients that cause the different curative effect. If the patients take antibiotic are both young and strong, and the patients take sugar pills are old and weakness, this experiment will have little persuasion on the argument. Again, the different treatment from different doctors may also lead to the differences on recuperation time. Comparing with a general physician, the Dr. Newland who specializes in sports medicine may afford more proper treatment on muscle injuries. Thirdly, patients in the second group don’t have the average recuperation time reduced, may partly because that the sugar pills have some negative effect on the recuperation. There is no further data can prove that the sugar pills have nothing to do with cumbering the recuperation process.

      So simply put these tow group of patients together, and indiscreetly deduct the conclusion that antibiotic is better for recuperation process is illogical.

      In addition, even through the experiment can prove the antibiotic do has some actively effect on these patient in the first group, it’s also far from demonstrating that it works on the other muscle injured patients. Does the sampling in the first group spread widely enough on the races, nations and ages? What if the patients in the first group are just these who suit the antibiotic’s effect?

      To expand the analysis, even if the antibiotics is finally found can reduce the recuperation time for muscle injured patients, is there any possibility that it also has black shadow at someplace we have not seen yet? Such as it may strength the resistance of the bacteria or it may cause a hypersensitive. Without making clarifying these questions, we can hardly infer that antibiotic do well on muscle injured patients.

      From what has been discussed above, the arguer fails to take into account several important factors, some of which may be critical to decide whether the antibiotic should be taken as part of the muscle strain patients’ treatment. To prove antibiotic is really and truly useful and safe, the argue should provide further evidence and consider the issue thoroughly.



[ 本帖最后由 sstonehu 于 2008-7-21 21:55 编辑 ]

zhuzhuorUID: 2452739

      The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making comparison of the tow group of patients, who are treated by different doctors and take different medicine（这个跟后面半句是不是重复了）, one group take antibiotics therefore shorter recuperation time, while another group take sugar pills and subsequently the usual recuperation time, the argument that muscle strained patient should take antibiotic for treatment seems logical.（第一段就陈述自己的观点吧...我还以为你要肯定呢orz）

      However, this hypothesis is failing(fails) to consider other possible alternatives to the difference on recuperation time besides the antibiotic. Such alternatives may include the physical conditions of the patients, the dissimilar treatment from different doctors, or the effect sugar pills may take(make).

      First of all, it’s possible the physical individual differences of patients that cause the different curative effect. If the patients take antibiotic are both young and strong, and the patients take sugar pills are old and weakness, this experiment will have little persuasion on the argument. Again(Moreover), the different treatment(s) from different doctors may also lead to the differences on(of?) recuperation time. Comparing with a general physician, the Dr. Newland who specializes in sports medicine may afford more proper treatment on muscle injuries. Thirdly, patients in the second group don’t have the average recuperation time reduced, may partly because that the sugar pills have some negative effect on the recuperation. There is no further data can prove that the sugar pills have nothing to do with cumbering the recuperation process.

      So simply put these tow group of patients together, and indiscreetly deduct the conclusion that antibiotic is better for recuperation process is illogical.

      In addition, even through the experiment can prove the antibiotic do has(have) some actively(active) effect on these patient(patients) in the first group, it’s also far from demonstrating that it works on the other muscle injured patients. Does the sampling in the first group spread widely enough on the races, nations and ages? What if the patients in the first group are just these who suit the antibiotic’s effect?

      To expand the analysis, even if the antibiotics is finally found can reduce the recuperation time for muscle injured patients, is there any possibility that it also has black shadow at someplace we have not seen yet? Such as it may strength the resistance of the bacteria or it may cause a hypersensitive. Without making clarifying these questions, we can hardly infer that antibiotic do well on muscle injured patients.

      From what has been discussed above, the arguer fails to take into account(accounting?) several important factors, some of which may be critical to decide whether the antibiotic should be taken as part of the muscle strain patients’ treatment. To prove antibiotic is really and truly useful and safe, the argue should provide further evidence and consider the issue thoroughly.

先放word里面查下单词拼写