argument51 by Aaron

huangnantaoUID：2474885

51.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."



In the argument, the author concludes that antibiotics should be prescribed for all the patients who are diagnosed with
muscle strain as a part of their treatment. To support his conclusion, the arguer cites a study involved two groups of
patients. As a result, patients of the first group who were treated by a doctor who specializes in sports medicine and
asked to take antibiotics have a shorter average recuperation time than those patients of the second group who were treated
by a doctor who is a general physician and asked to take sugar pills. At first glance, the argument seems to be somewhat
convincing, but close scrutiny of it reveals that this argument is logically flawed in several respects.

To begin with, the evidence of the study must be showed to be reliable before I can accept any conclusion based on it.
However, the study is unconvincing in several aspects. First, the argument fails to provide the absolute number of the
patients. The author can not draw any firm conclusion if the samples of the study is too limited. Second, no information
about the patients of the two groups such as age and body conditions which might help to bring about a different result is
provided by the author. Common sense tells us that the average recuperation time of the younger and stronger patients will
certainly be shorter than those patients who are old and have bad bady conditions. Third, even if the physical conditions
of the two groups of patients are at the same level, but the difference of the doctors might affect the result of the
study. Since Dr. Newland specialized in sport medicine, he might have a better understanding of the illness of muscle
strain than Dr. Alton did, a general physician. As a result, the average recuperation time of the first group will
certainly be shorter. Fourth, even if the doctor were at the same level for curing muscle strain, but there is no evidence
to support that those sugar pills, which were taken by the patients of the second group, does not help to slower the
healing. It's too hasty to conclude that antibiotics is good for the treatment of the muscle strain patients. In short,
without ruling out these and other possible factors which might effect the result, it can not convince me based on a
invalid and misleading study.

In addition, even assuming that antibiotics can help reduce the recuperation time of the illness of muscle, it's too hasty
to make the conclusion that all patients should be advised to take antibiotics when they are diagnosed with muscle strain.
The author fails to consider the side effects of the antibiotics. Perhaps some of the patients would be allergic when they
take antibiotics. Thus, antibiotics should be used with caution.

In sum, the conclusion reached in the argument is misleading, because the evidences cited in the analysis does not lend
strong support to what the arguer maintains. In order to make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to
provide a new study that is controlled in a strict conditions in which all factors of the two groups of patients are the
same. Hence, the result of the study would sound inference. He would also have to demonstrate that the antibiotics do not
have side effects for all of the patients. Therefore, the argument would have been more thorough and logically acceptable
when it includes the factors discussed above.

huangnantaoUID：2474885

刚才自己也稍微修改了一下
付上刚才为了抢位没来得及发的提纲：

1: survey : a, 没有样本的数量
            b, 病人的情况没有说明，可能影响结果
            c,  就算病人的所有physical情况一样，医生水平不行
            d, 就算医生也一样，药不一样，糖丸有可能延缓康复

2：论断果断：所有患者都应该吃an...药，但是可能有副作用


个人觉得文章结构不好，SURVEY 那段写太多了，但是所有因素都跟调查有关
这样不平衡的组织是不是会影响评分？ 应该严守 中间3段吗？


还有个题外话想问666，  我水平有限，时间也不多了
能掌握的句式太单少，不能表达思想，很多人推荐背范文，背精彩句，说很快见效
单纯应考，这么做好吗？

irvine666UID：2575525

51.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."

In the argument, the author concludes that antibiotics should be prescribed for all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain as a part of their treatment. To support his conclusion, the arguer cites a study involved two groups of patients. As a result, patients of the first group who were treated by a doctor who specializes in sports medicine and asked to take antibiotics have a shorter average recuperation time than those patients of the second group who were treated by a doctor who is a general physician and asked to take sugar pills.（这段是多余的，完全可以去掉） At first glance, the argument seems to be somewhat（seem和somewhat选一个就足够了） convincing, but close scrutiny of it reveals that this argument is logically flawed in several respects.（开头应该是个模板，而且貌似是被几万人用烂的那种，我建议你换一换～）

To begin with, the evidence of the study must be showed to be reliable before I can accept any conclusion based on it. However（这里无需转折）, the study is unconvincing in several aspects. First, the argument fails to provide the absolute number of the patients（exact figure）. The author can not draw any firm conclusion if the samples of the study is too limited(why?你这里要落足到“代表性不够”上，多加几句论述来把它解释清楚). Second, no information about the patients of the two groups such as age and body conditions which might help to bring about a different result is provided by the author. Common sense tells us that the average recuperation time of the younger and stronger patients will certainly be shorter than（这个比较合理） those patients who are old and have bad bady conditions. Third, even if the physical conditions of the two groups of patients are at the same level, but(不要) the difference(s) of the doctors might affect the result of the study. Since Dr. Newland specialized in sport medicine, he might have a better understanding of the illness of muscle strain than Dr. Alton did(这个不是最强的反驳理由，最强的是病人分布，如果DR.Newland刚好装上了一群因为运动不当而肌肉拉伤的病人，而DR.Alton撞上的是各种原因都有的病人，自然结果不可信), a general physician. As a result, the average recuperation time of the first group will certainly be shorter. Fourth, even if the doctor were at the same level for curing muscle strain, but there is no evidence to support that those sugar pills, which were taken by the patients of the second group, does not help to slower the healing. （这里漏了点东西，最好把sugar pills对slower（最好用alleviate）可能的作用讲一下,充分支持你的分论点TS句）It's too hasty to conclude that antibiotics is good for the treatment of the muscle strain patients. In short, without ruling out these and other possible factors which might effect the result, it can not convince me based on a invalid and misleading study.（除开一些他因不太合理以外，就是让步从句不要带转折连词的问题了，这段按照4+标准卡的话，差距不是很大，另外注意一下充分论述，多加点说理性的话）

In addition, even assuming that antibiotics can help reduce the recuperation time of the illness of muscle(这个让步有点问题，你上文并没有提到antibiotics的reduce作用，关于让步的用法，可以参考这篇https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=921368&highlight), it's too hasty to make the conclusion that all patients should be advised to take antibiotics when they are diagnosed with muscle strain. The author fails to consider the side effects of the antibiotics. Perhaps some of the patients would be allergic when they take antibiotics. Thus, antibiotics should be used with caution.（老实说，这段不是论述，是提纲...基本上你就是把提纲给翻译了一遍...我建议你把其中的内容再充实一下，至于如何充实请先自己对着官方范文思考一下）

In sum, the conclusion reached in the argument is misleading, because the evidences cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. In order to make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide a new study that is controlled in a strict conditions in which all factors of the two groups of patients are the same. Hence, the result of the study would sound inference. He would also have to demonstrate that the antibiotics do not have side effects for all of the patients. Therefore, the argument would have been more thorough and logically acceptable when it includes the factors discussed above.（结尾不改，个人习惯～）

这里有几个要说一下的地方：
1.你的文章，模板句子用的比较死，基本就是那么几个句式，而且绝对是顺着模板来卡思维，这个是大忌。模板考前时间不多的情况下，可以用，但是一定要限制在句子的范围内。以段落或者多个句子为单位背诵模板，会让你的思维变成模板的奴隶，是很得不偿失的一件事情。
2.对于论述来讲，你的说理性的话有，但是少了些，他因是用来证明你的说理的，所以因该是说理内容占主导地位，而不是整篇文章充斥着other possibilities。
3.句式单调估计是模板的后果，我回了别人一个帖子，你可以看看，然后思考一下：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=941194&page=1#pid1772564746

irvine666UID：2575525

段落结构并不影响你的最终得分，只要你是在说一个东西，不管多少话，放在一个段落，总是没错的。
此外，背范文的句式我不赞成，但是也不反对，这个东西要看你具体怎么用，还是那句话，以句子（最好是分句）为单位来背模板，是应考的不错方法，虽然它也就只能应付一下考试而已。

yhwzUID：2628211

lz 你开始 限时了吗？

huangnantaoUID：2474885

5# yhwz


限了，但是后来改了一下拿来让66 给改的

改一次不容易，主要想看看66给的逻辑和结构的建议

多了100字吧～～