argument51【FF小组】 by duyuan3377

duyuan3377UID: 2415765

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: 446          TIME: 00:40:00          DATE: 2008-11-26 21:54
没有证据表明二次感染一定会发生，或severe muscle strain的病人容易发生二次感染。
2. 两组病人的对比研究不科学。首先，两组病人的选择，没有说明病人的身体状况，年龄，以及病情，可能第一组年轻人，或伤势较轻，而第二组老人，或伤势较重；第二，两个医生的水平不同；第三，sugar pills对治疗是否有影响也没有说明。
3. 仅仅一组不严谨的实验结果，不可以说明结论。抗生素可能有副作用，或引起过敏反应，显然不可以让all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain 都采用抗生素的疗法。
-----------------------正文---------------------------
In the medical newsletter, the arguer draws a conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. The argument is mainly based on a study of two groups of patients. Although at first glance the argument seems cogent, yet it can’t stand reexamination.
>
In the first place, the arguer groundlessly assumes that secondary infections are likely to occur to the patients after severe muscle strain. However, he fails to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the assumption. Perhaps there is little chance that secondary infections will happen and. In addition, it is also entirely possible that secondary infections may not bring negative influence on treatment at all. If either possibility is true, the argument’s conclusion is unpersuasive.
>
In addition, the study of two groups of patients is unconvincing. Firstly, the two groups of subjects on experiment might not be comparable without the personal data being collected respectively. Maybe the first group is younger than the second one. It is also possible that the patients in the second group suffer much more severe muscle strain than those in the first group do. Secondly, a sports medical doctor and a general physician are different on the level to treat severe muscle strain. Obviously the former doctor specializes in sports medicine and is more skillful to diagnose with severe muscle strain. Nevertheless, the latter one is not good at it. Thirdly, the arguer fails to provide any evidence to illustrate that sugar pills taken by the patients in the second group won’t exert any influence on treatment. Perhaps sugar pills resist the effect of regular medicine so that delay the recuperation time. Without taking other factors above into account, the study is unscientific and makes no sense.
>
Last but not least, the arguer makes a hasty conclusion. The fact that the first group’s recuperation time is less than that of the second group is insufficient to support the conclusion that all patient with severe muscle strain are required to follow. The results of the study are no more than preliminary ones. Before proving it effective and safe to all patients, we still have a long way to go. For example, the argument provides no information about side effect in the long run, caused by antibiotics. What is more, whether there are some exceptions is still questionable. It is highly possible that it is fatal to some people who are allergic to antibiotics.
>
To sum up, there are several logical flaws which weaken the argument. In order to solidify the argument, a more thorough and scientific research is definitely needed without defects above mentioned.

[ 本帖最后由 duyuan3377 于 2008-11-26 22:14 编辑 ]

alpskyUID: 2438084

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected thatsecondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly aftersevere muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved bypreliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The firstgroup of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr.Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibioticsregularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, onaverage, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in thesecond group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, weregiven sugar pills, although the patients believed they were takingantibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantlyreduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strainwould be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."
WORDS: 446          TIME: 00:40:00          DATE: 2008-11-26 21:54
没有证据表明二次感染一定会发生，或severe muscle strain的病人容易发生二次感染。
2. 两组病人的对比研究不科学。首先，两组病人的选择，没有说明病人的身体状况，年龄，以及病情，可能第一组年轻人，或伤势较轻，而第二组老人，或伤势较重；第二，两个医生的水平不同；第三，sugar pills对治疗是否有影响也没有说明。
3. 仅仅一组不严谨的实验结果，不可以说明结论。抗生素可能有副作用，或引起过敏反应，显然不可以让all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain 都采用抗生素的疗法。
这个好像是猴哥上的哦，呵呵
-----------------------正文---------------------------
Inthe medical newsletter, the arguer draws a conclusion that all patientswho are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to takeantibiotics as part of their treatment. The argument is mainly based ona study of two groups of patients. Although at first glance theargument seems cogent, yet it can’t stand reexamination啥意思？.
>
In the first place, thearguer groundlessly 词性错了吧assumes that secondary infections are likely tooccur to the patients after severe muscle strain. However, he fails toprovide sufficient evidence to substantiate the assumption. Perhapsthere is little chance that secondary infections will happen and. ？Inaddition, it is also entirely possible that secondary infections maynot bring negative influence on treatment at all. If either possibilityis true, the argument’s conclusion is unpersuasive.
>
In addition, the study oftwo groups of patients is unconvincing. Firstly, the two groups ofsubjects on experiment might not be comparable，without the personaldata being collected respectively. Maybe patients in the first group is youngerthan that of the second one. It is also possible that the patients in thesecond group suffer much more severe （severer） muscle strain than those in thefirst group do. Secondly, a sports medical doctor and a generalphysician are different on the level to treat severe muscle strain.Obviously the former doctor specializes in sports medicine and is moreskillful to diagnose with severe muscle strain. Nevertheless, thelatter one is not good at it. Thirdly, the arguer fails to provide anyevidence to illustrate that sugar pills taken by the patients in thesecond group won’t exert any influence on treatment. Perhaps sugarpills resist the effect of regular medicine so that delay therecuperation time. Without taking other factors above into account, thestudy is unscientific and makes no sense.
>
Last but not least, thearguer makes a hasty conclusion. The fact that the first group’srecuperation time is less than that of the second group is insufficientto support the conclusion that all patient with severe muscle strainare required to follow. The results of the study are no more thanpreliminary ones. Before proving it effective and safe to all patients,we still have a long way to go. For example, the argument provides noinformation about side effect in the long run, caused by antibiotics.What is more, whether there are some exceptions is still questionable.It is highly possible that it is fatal to some people who are allergicto antibiotics.
>
To sum up, there areseveral logical flaws which weaken the argument. In order to solidifythe argument, a more thorough and scientific research is definitelyneeded without defects above mentioned.
字数很够~进步很快~错误不多~ 接下来的东西应该不是我能改的了，可能需要自己多琢磨语句，也许是一个基本功在起作用。