0910G [Just do it] Argument51 by greenxs

greenxsUID: 2529289

题目
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."

The author of this medical newsletter suggests that all patients who have muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the conclusion, he/she shows evidences that secondary infections may keep some patients who has severe muscle strain from healing quickly. Then the author gives two groups’ experiments to establish the suggestion. However, further examination of the relationship between conclusion and evidences reveals that this argument is flawed in several critical aspects.

The major problem of this argument is that the author does not different people with muscle strain and people who suffer from secondary infections. The evidence shows an assumption that secondary infection may slow patients healing, but the author does not provide any information about how many of patients with severe muscle strain will have secondary infection. Then, the author gives a study of two groups of patients to prove the assumption. There are also no facts could reveal that the two groups of patients have troubles of secondary infections. Without enough evidences and clear relation between the assumption and proofs, we could not accept the study has proved the hypothesis.

Even though we assume that two groups of patients had suffered from the secondary infections. The author has not provided sufficient evidences which could prove recuperation of the first group is because of taking antibiotics. There is no particular information about the two groups of patients, such as their ages, health situation, and degree of severe muscle stain. Maybe patients in the second group are younger than the first group, so they have better health condition and recovered quickly. The author also overlooks the different doctors of the two groups which may influence the experimental result significantly. Since the doctor of the first group is who specialized in sports medicine, he/she may know how to treat such problems very professionally. And Dr. Alton who treated the first group is a general physician who may lack of experiences of curing severe muscle strain. Therefore, without ruling out all the possibilities, we could not sure that the first group of patients has healed quicker than the second group is because of taking antibiotics.


Last but not least, even assuming that taking antibiotics may work on rehabilitating muscle strain, the conclusion that all patients who have this trouble would take antibiotics is unwarranted. The disadvantages of this suggestion are apparently overweighed to its advantages, since not each patient who has muscle strain will have to take antibiotics. It is well known that antibiotics not only use to prevent infectious diseases, but also have some side-effects. Let alone there are some patients who are sensitive to antibiotics. For these reasons, we could justify that this suggestion is not feasible.

All in all, the author fails to prove the hypothesis and the conclusion. To better evaluate the suggestion, we need more accurate evidences that the relation between the hypothesis and the study, more information about the experiments of the two groups and rule out all the negative elements of the suggestion. After all, a wrong suggestion of treatment will be more dangerous than taking no medicine at all.

greenxsUID: 2529289

谢谢~~
恩，有的是一边写一边查的，我也觉得很多挺奇怪的。。。。
大概用三个多小时吧，需要精简一下
（抗生素是用来防止传染病的？） 对，在金山词霸上查的

2# cxjack


修改后的

The author of this medical newsletter suggests that all patients who have muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the conclusion, he/she shows evidences that secondary infections may keep some patients who has severe muscle strain from healing quickly. Then the author gives two groups’ experiments to establish the suggestion. However, further examination of the relationship between conclusion and evidences reveals that this argument is flawed in several critical aspects.

The major problem of this argument is that the author does not distinguish people with muscle strain and people who suffer from secondary infections. The evidence shows an assumption that secondary infection may slow down patients’ healing, but the author does not provide any information about how many of patients with severe muscle strain will have secondary infection. Then, the author gives a study of two groups of patients to prove the assumption. There are also no facts could reveal that the two groups of patients have troubles of secondary infections. Without enough evidences and clear relation between the assumption and proofs, we could not accept the study has proved the hypothesis.

Even though we assume that two groups of patients had suffered from the secondary infections. The author has not provided sufficient evidences which could prove recuperation of the first group is because of taking antibiotics. There is no particular information about the two groups of patients, such as their ages, health situation, and degree of severe muscle strain. Maybe patients in the first group are younger than the second group, so they have better health condition and recovered quickly. The author also overlooks（应该用overlooked）（这里我全篇都用的一般现在时，那么这是不是也应该是一般现在呢？） the different doctors of the two groups which may influence the experimental result significantly. Since the doctor of the first group is who specialized in sports medicine, he/she may know how to treat such problems very professionally. And Dr. Alton who treats the first group is a general physician who may lack of experiences of curing severe muscle strain. Therefore, without ruling out all the possibilities, we could not sure that the first group of patients has healed quicker than the second group is because of taking antibiotics.



Last but not least, even assuming that taking antibiotics may work on rehabilitating muscle strain, the conclusion that all patients who have this trouble would take antibiotics is unwarranted. The disadvantages of this suggestion apparently overweigh to its advantages, since not each patient who has muscle strain will have to take antibiotics. It is well known that antibiotics are with the use of preventing infectious diseases, and they also have some side-effects. Let alone there are some patients who are sensitive to antibiotics. For these reasons, we could believe that this suggestion is not feasible.

All in all, the author fails to prove the hypothesis and the conclusion. To better evaluate the suggestion, we need more accurate evidences that the relation between the hypothesis and the study, more information about the experiments of the two groups and rule out all the negative elements of the suggestion. After all, a wrong suggestion of treatment will be more dangerous than taking no medicine at all.

greenxsUID: 2529289

可是因为第一段Then the author gives two groups’ experiments to establish the suggestion.  例如这个也是一般现在时。。。。

4# cxjack

zmjxf2008UID: 2597395

The author of this medical newsletter suggests that all patients who have muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the conclusion, he/she(可以直接用speaker或者arguer) shows evidences that secondary infections may keep some patients who has severe muscle strain from healing quickly. Then the author gives two groups’ experiments to establish the suggestion. However, further examination of the relationship between conclusion and evidences reveals that this argument is flawed in several critical aspects.

The major problem of this argument is that the author does not distinguish people with muscle strain and people who suffer from secondary infections. The evidence shows an assumption that secondary infection may slow down patients’ healing, but the author does not provide any information about how many of patients with severe muscle strain will have secondary infection. Then, the author gives a study of two groups of patients to prove the assumption. There are also no facts could reveal that the two groups of patients have troubles of secondary infections. Without enough evidences and clear relation between the assumption and proofs, we could not accept the study has proved the hypothesis.

Even though we assume that two groups of patients had suffered from the secondary infections. The author has not provided sufficient evidences which could prove recuperation of the first group is because of taking antibiotics. There is no particular information about the two groups of patients, such as their ages, health situation, and degree of severe muscle strain. Maybe patients in the first group are younger than the second group, so they have better health condition and recovered quickly. The author also overlooks（应该用overlooked）（这里我全篇都用的一般现在时，那么这是不是也应该是一般现在呢？） the different doctors of the two groups which may influence the experimental result significantly. Since the doctor of the first group is who specialized in sports medicine(这里有语法问题啊，应该把who去掉啊）, he/she may know how to treat such problems very professionally. And Dr. Alton who treats the first group is a general physician who may lack of experiences of curing severe muscle strain. Therefore, without ruling out all the possibilities, we could not sure that the first group of patients has healed quicker than the second group is because of taking antibiotics.



Last but not least, even assuming that taking antibiotics may work on rehabilitating muscle strain, the conclusion that all patients who have this trouble would take antibiotics is unwarranted. The disadvantages of this suggestion apparently overweigh to its advantages, since not each patient who has muscle strain will have to take antibiotics. It is well known that antibiotics are with the use of preventing infectious diseases, and they also have some side-effects. Let alone there are some patients who are sensitive to（过敏应该用allergic to) antibiotics. For these reasons, we could believe that this suggestion is not feasible.

All in all, the author fails to prove the hypothesis and the conclusion. To better evaluate the suggestion, we need more accurate evidences that the relation between the hypothesis and the study, more information about the experiments of the two groups and rule out all the negative elements of the suggestion. After all, a wrong suggestion of treatment will be more dangerous than taking no medicine at all.（感觉有些过激了，建议去掉）

总的感觉还不错，句子表达的都挺清楚，注意下用词，恩加油~

greenxsUID: 2529289

修改完的
The author of this medical newsletter suggests that all patients who have muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the conclusion, he/she shows evidences that secondary infections may keep some patients who has severe muscle strain from healing quickly. Then the author gives two groups’ experiments to establish the suggestion. However, further examination of the relationship between conclusion and evidences reveals that this argument is flawed in several critical aspects.

The major problem of this argument is that the author does not distinguish people with muscle strain and people who suffer from secondary infections. The evidence shows an assumption that secondary infection may slow down patients’ healing, but the author does not provide any information about how many of patients with severe muscle strain will have secondary infection. Then, the author gives a study of two groups of patients to prove the assumption. There are also no facts could reveal that the two groups of patients have troubles of secondary infections. Without enough evidences and clear relation between the assumption and proofs, we could not accept the study has proved the hypothesis.

Even though we assume that two groups of patients had suffered from the secondary infections. The author has not provided sufficient evidences which could prove recuperation of the first group is because of taking antibiotics. There is no particular information about the two groups of patients, such as their ages, health situation, and degree of severe muscle strain. Maybe patients in the first group are younger than the second group, so they have better health condition and recovered quickly. The author also overlooks the different doctors of the two groups which may influence the experimental result significantly. Since the doctor of the first group specializes in sports medicine, he/she may know how to treat such problems very professionally. And Dr. Alton who treats the first group is a general physician who may lack of experiences of curing severe muscle strain. Therefore, without ruling out all the possibilities, we could not sure that the first group of patients has healed quicker than the second group is because of taking antibiotics.  

Last but not least, even assuming that taking antibiotics may work on rehabilitating muscle strain, the conclusion that all patients who have this trouble would take antibiotics is unwarranted. The disadvantages of this suggestion apparently overweigh to its advantages, since not each patient who has muscle strain will have to take antibiotics. It is well known that antibiotics are with the use of preventing infectious diseases, and they also have some side-effects. Let alone there are some patients who are allergic to antibiotics. For these reasons, we could believe that this suggestion is not feasible.

All in all, the author fails to prove the hypothesis and the conclusion. To better evaluate the suggestion, we need more accurate evidences that the relation between the hypothesis and the study, more information about the experiments of the two groups and rule out all the negative elements of the suggestion. After all, a wrong suggestion of treatment may be more dangerous than taking no medicine at all.


7# zmjxf2008

chill_lyUID: 2640200

8# greenxs

The author of this medical newsletter suggests that all patients who have muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the conclusion, he/she shows evidences that secondary infections may keep some patients who has severe muscle strain from healing quickly. Then the author gives two groups’ experiments to establish the suggestion. However, further examination of the relationship between conclusion and evidences reveals that this argument is flawed in several critical aspects.

The major problem of this argument is that the author does not distinguish people with muscle strain and people who suffer from secondary infections. The evidence shows an assumption that secondary infection may slow down patients’ healing, but the author does not provide any information about how many of patients with severe muscle strain will have secondary infection. Then, the author gives a study of two groups of patients to prove the assumption. There are also no facts that(there be＋sth句型不能直接跟动词)could reveal that the two groups of patients have troubles of secondary infections. Without enough evidences and clear relation between the assumption and proofs, we could not accept the study has proved the hypothesis.

Even though we assume that two groups of patients had suffered from the secondary infections. The author has not provided sufficient evidences which could prove recuperation of the first group is because of taking antibiotics. There is no particular information about the two groups of patients, such as their ages, health situation, and degree of severe muscle strain. Maybe patients in the first group are younger than the second group, so they have better health condition and recovered quickly. The author also overlooks the different doctors of the two groups which may influence the experimental result significantly. Since the doctor of the first group specializes in sports medicine, he/she may know how to treat such problems very professionally. And Dr. Alton who treats the second group is a general physician who may lack of experiences of curing severe muscle strain. Therefore, without ruling out all the possibilities, we could not make sure that the first group of patients has healed quicker than the second group is because of taking antibiotics. (不要老用because of，可以试试the reason why ... is等等,丰富一下表达方式:loveliness: )

Last but not least, even assuming that taking antibiotics may work on rehabilitating muscle strain, the conclusion that all patients who have this trouble would take antibiotics is unwarranted. The disadvantages of this suggestion apparently overweigh to its advantages, since not each patient who has muscle strain will have to take antibiotics. It is well known that antibiotics are with the use of preventing infectious diseases, and they also have some side-effects. Let alone there are some patients who are allergic to antibiotics. For these reasons, we could believe that this suggestion is not feasible.

All in all, the author fails to prove the hypothesis and the conclusion. To better evaluate the suggestion, we need more accurate evidences that the relation between the hypothesis and the study, more information about the experiments of the two groups and rule out all the negative elements of the suggestion. After all, a wrong suggestion of treatment may be more dangerous than taking no medicine at all.

不错不错 基本上没有什么问题 论述也很充分
加油！