第一次作业【Just Do It】Argument51 by leopard2009

leopard2009UID: 2596872

“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.”
This argument at first presents the preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients, then draws the conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should be treated with taking antibiotics. At first glance, the argument seems a kind of specific and plausible. A deeper investigation, however, reveals that the study can not substantiate the conclusion unless the specific information about the compared sampling groups is provided and other possible reasons are ruled out.

To begin with, the arguer states that because the group taking antibiotics have quicker recuperation time than the group without taking, it's advisable for the patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, if the two groups can not be compared, that is the two groups have the distinctive characteristics influencing the study results, the conclusion is open to doubt. For instance, If the group taking antibiotics are much younger than the group without taking, the age, rather than whether taking antibiotics, may be the main reason to explain the faster recuperation time. The comparison between the two sample groups requires the participants in them to have the same important characteristics, otherwise the conclusion won't be well grounded.

Moreover, even if the two groups have the same important characteristics, the argument fails to tell whether there were other different treatments, besides taking antibiotics, prescribed by Dr. Newland to the same group at the same time. For example, Dr. Newland may also have used the massaging treatment to help his patients to recover. And if the truth is that the massage, instead of taking antibiotics, made the patients in that group recuperate more quickly, the argument above is not well sound. And in the same rationale, the arguer doesn't mention whether there were no other treatments, beside taking sugar pills, taken in the Dr. Alton's group. Without ruling out these kind of possibilities, the arguer can not draw any reliable conclusions about advising patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

Finally, even if taking antibiotics does help patients to heal quickly, it is not reliable for all patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. As we know, almost all the antibiotics have certain side effects, which would be dangerous if antibiotics are used carelessly. For example, it would be very cautious for the pregnant to take antibiotics. Besides, some patients are allergic to many antibiotics. For them, taking antibiotics without considering their allergy would be really perilous. So only if the patients' health situations are carefully examined before the treatment, can taking antibiotics be a well advisable prescription for them.

In conclusion, this argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. This argument could be improved by setting the two groups in study the same important characteristics, and by confirming that there are no other treatments prescribed by the doctors during the study. It could be further improved if the arguer realizes that not all patients, as a result of the side effects or allergy, are well advised to take antibiotics.

houpei0126UID: 2643060

This argument at first presents the preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients, then draws the conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should be treated with taking antibiotics. At first glance, the argument seems a kind of specific and plausible. A deeper investigation, however, reveals that the study can not substantiate the conclusion unless the specific information about the compared sampling groups is provided and other possible reasons are ruled out.

To begin with, the arguer states that because the group taking antibiotics have quicker recuperation time than the group without taking, it's advisable for the patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, if the two groups can not be compared, that is the two groups have the distinctive characteristics influencing the study results, the conclusion is open to doubt. For instance, If the group taking antibiotics are much younger than the group without taking, the age, rather than whether taking antibiotics, may be the main reason to explain the faster recuperation time. The comparison between the two sample groups requires the participants in them to have the same important characteristics, otherwise the conclusion won't be well grounded.（两句话似乎阐述了同一个意思，论据方面可以再充足些，否则，给人的感觉是同一句话，反过来翻过去的说）
Moreover, even if the two groups have the same important characteristics, the argument fails to tell whether there were other different treatments, besides taking antibiotics, （语意不明）prescribed by Dr. Newland to the same group at the same time. For example, Dr. Newland may also have used the massaging treatment to help his patients to recover. And if the truth is that the massage, instead of taking antibiotics, made the patients in that group recuperate more quickly, the argument above is not well sound. And in the same rationale, the arguer doesn't mention whether there were no other treatments, beside taking sugar pills, taken in the Dr. Alton's group. Without ruling out these kind of possibilities, the arguer can not draw any reliable conclusions about advising patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.（此段的论述就比较有针对性和说服力）
Finally, even if taking antibiotics does help patients to heal quickly, it is not reliable for all patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. As we know, almost all the antibiotics have certain side effects（不是吧，几乎所有的都有副作用，太绝对化了）, which would be dangerous if antibiotics are used carelessly. For example, it would be very cautious for the pregnant to take antibiotics. Besides, some patients are allergic to many antibiotics. For them, taking antibiotics without considering their allergy would be really perilous. So only if the patients' health situations are carefully examined before the treatment, can taking antibiotics be a well advisable prescription for them.

In conclusion, this argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. This argument could be improved by setting the two groups in study the same important characteristics, and by confirming that there are no other treatments prescribed by the doctors during the study. It could be further improved if the arguer realizes that not all patients, as a result of the side effects or allergy, are well advised to take antibiotics.（最后的总结很不错）
文章的整体水平已经超出我的想象了，总的来说很不错，但一些细节的东西还需要再加强。
羡慕中，比我好多了~~:)

dodoluluUID: 2641270

This argument at first presents the preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients, then draws the conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should be treated with taking antibiotics. At first glance, the argument seems a kind of specific and plausible. A deeper investigation, however, reveals that the study can not substantiate the conclusion unless the specific information about the compared sampling groups is provided and other possible reasons are ruled out.

To begin with, the arguer states that because the group taking antibiotics havehas quicker recuperation time than the group without taking, it's advisable for the patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, if the two groups can not be compared, that is the two groups have the distinctive characteristics influencing the study results, the conclusion is open to doubt. For instance, If the group taking antibiotics are much younger than the group without taking, the age, rather than whether taking antibiotics, may be the main reason to explain the faster recuperation time. The comparison between the two sample groups requires the participants in them to have the same important characteristics, otherwise the conclusion won'tcan’t更好吧 be well grounded.

Moreover, even if the two groups have the same important characteristics, the argument fails to tell whether there were other different treatments, besides taking antibiotics, prescribed by Dr. Newland to the same group at the same time这句没说明白. For example, Dr. Newland may also have used the massaging treatment to help his patients to recover. And if the truth is that the massage, instead of taking antibiotics, made the patients in that group recuperate more quickly, the argument above is not well sound. And in the same rationale, the arguer doesn't mention whether there were no other treatments, besidebesides taking sugar pills, taken in the Dr. Alton's group. Without ruling out these kindkinds of possibilities, the arguer can not draw any reliable conclusions about advising patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

Finally, even if taking antibiotics does help patients to heal quickly, it is not reliable for all patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. As we know, almost all the antibiotics have certain side effects, which would be dangerous if antibiotics are used carelessly. For example, it would be very cautious for the pregnant to take antibiotics. Besides, some patients are allergic to many antibiotics. For them, taking antibiotics without considering their allergy would be really perilous. So only if the patients' health situations are carefully examined before the treatment, can taking antibiotics be a well advisable prescription for them.

In conclusion, this argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. This argument could be improved by setting the two groups in study the same important characteristics, and by confirming that there are no other treatments prescribed by the doctors during the study. It could be further improved if the arguer realizes that not all patients, as a result of the side effects or allergy, are well advised to take antibiotics.
真的不错，没有模版的argu看起来就是爽！我不知道多久才能这样自如的写argu。
用的高级词汇也不少，句式也很多变，关键是用的很合理。

二月蓝UID: 2643877

This argument at first presents the preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients, then draws the conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should be treated with taking antibiotics. At first glance, the argument seems a kind of specific and plausible. A deeper investigation, however, reveals that the study can not substantiate the conclusion unless the specific information about the compared sampling groups is provided and other possible reasons are ruled out.
To begin with, the arguer states that because the group taking antibiotics have quicker recuperation time than the group without taking, it's advisable for the patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, if the two groups can not be compared, that is the two groups have the distinctive characteristics influencing the study results, the conclusion is open to doubt. For instance, If the group taking antibiotics are much younger than the group without taking, the age, rather than whether taking antibiotics, may be the main reason to explain the faster recuperation time. The comparison between the two sample groups requires the participants in them to have the same important characteristics, otherwise the conclusion won't be well grounded.
Moreover, even if the two groups have the same important characteristics, the argument fails to tell whether there were other different treatments, besides taking antibiotics, prescribed by Dr. Newland to the same group at the same time. For example, Dr. Newland may also have used the massaging treatment to help his patients to recover. And if the truth is that the massage, instead of taking antibiotics, made the patients in that group recuperate more quickly, the argument above is not well sound. And in the same rationale, the arguer doesn't mention whether there were no other treatments, beside taking sugar pills, taken in the Dr. Alton's group. Without ruling out these kind of possibilities, the arguer can not draw any reliable conclusions about advising patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.
Finally, even if taking antibiotics does help patients to heal quickly, it is not reliable for all patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. As we know, almost all the antibiotics have certain side effects, which would be dangerous if antibiotics are used carelessly.不一定是almost all都有副作用，只是药需要代谢，很多人认为这个就伤肝或者肾了
For example, it would be very cautious for the pregnant to take antibiotics. Besides, some patients are allergic to many antibiotics. For them, taking antibiotics without considering their allergy would be really perilous. So only if the patients' health situations are carefully examined before the treatment, can taking antibiotics be a well advisable prescription for them.
In conclusion, this argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. This argument could be improved by setting the two groups in study the same important characteristics, and by confirming that there are no other treatments prescribed by the doctors during the study. It could be further improved if the arguer realizes that not all patients, as a result of the side effects or allergy, are well advised to take antibiotics.
真的写的很好，不单单是挑出了原文的逻辑错误，在本文的1，2，3之间也有存在有逻辑关系的。赞啊~~~要好好学习这种写法。