[just do it]第一次作业 Argument51 by zmjxf2008

zmjxf2008UID: 2597395

51The 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."


1。对比实验中，其他重要条件不相同，主要指doctor
2。对比实验很多其他变量没有控制
3。从一小部分人的实验得出针对所有人的结论，太过概括。




    The arguer tries to prove that patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics to prevent secondary infections because antibiotics help reduce their recuperation time,citing the comparison study of two groups of patients, one of which took antibiotics regularly, the other took sugar pills instead.The argument by comparison seems valid,but when we probe into the details and uncontrolled virables in the process, the conclusion is more proofless than founded.
    First,the arguer has overlooked other different factors in the process which is crucial to the result of comparison.For example,the first group are treated by a sports medicine specialist,while the second are treated by a general physician.This difference will to a large extent lead to the incorrectness of the result.As common sense tells, a specialist is alway more knowledgeable and more experienced in his field than a general doctor,so there is great chance that the specialist in sports medicine chooses more effective healing medicine than the physician apart from antibiotics, which will definitely make the first group recover sooner.And patients alway tend to trust a specialist than a general physician,for that matter,the former's advise are more likely to be followed than the latter,which can also lead to the declined recuperation time of the first group.
     Second,some of the important virables,which are the premise of the argument,are not mentioned,such as the level of the patients' muscle strain,the ages of the patients,and the number of the patients in each group.There is large possibility that the average level of the muscle strain in each group are not equal,for example the second is much severer than the first,or the ages of the two groups are not in the same level,for example the second group are mostly in their sixties' or seventies',while the first group are  youngster whose physical conditions are more advantageous to their recuperation than the old ones.And the number of the patients in each group must be the same if the arguer want to do effective comparison.If one group has more members than the other,it is more likely that it will take longer for all its patients to recover from the same extent of strain under the same condition.Unless all these virables are well controlled the same,the argument process will not be valid because of the lack of enough essential premises.
      Even if the lacking factors listed above is controlled the same,the arguer commits the fallacy of hasty overgeneralization,by jumping to the conclusion of "all patients" with muscle strain should take antibiotics, from the experiment result of only a minority of people and an average effect of those people.As is said by the arguer"their recuperation time was ,on average,40 percent quicker",we cannot reclude that some patients in the first group recovered slower than typically expected,and taking antibiotics are not helpful for them.Even though all the patients in the first group recovered sooner than expected, there is no evidence that that part of people are well representative of all patients outside the experiment.Maybe the patients in the first group are all having light muscle strain,yet the antibiotics are no longer effective when used to deal with severe muscle strain problem.So a lot more research work need to be done and a variety of exceptions should be taken into account before the arguer conclude that antibiotics is advisable to all patients with muscle strain.
        In sum,when an arguer is trying to make valid argument by comparison,all the factors except the subject factor should be well controlled the same,otherwise,the contrast of the result should not be attributable to the subject  factor.And preliminary result of any typical experiment involving a small minority  cannot be applied to all, unless there has been proved no exception.

chill_lyUID: 2640200

1# zmjxf2008

The arguer tries to prove that patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics to prevent secondary infections because antibiotics help(这里不是因果关系，用so as to) reduce their recuperation time,citing the comparison study of two groups of patients, one of which took antibiotics regularly, the other took sugar pills instead.The argument by comparison seems valid,but when we probe into the details and uncontrolled virables(没查到这个词) in the process, the conclusion is more proofless than founded.

First,the arguer has overlooked other different factors in the process which is crucial to the result of comparison.For example,the first group are treated by a sports medicine specialist,while the second are treated by a general physician.This difference will to a large extent lead to the incorrectness of the result.As common sense tells, a specialist is alway more knowledgeable and (more) experienced in his field than a general doctor,so there is a great chance that the specialist in sports medicine chooses more effective healing medicine than the physician apart from antibiotics, which will definitely make the first group recover sooner.And patients alway tend to trust a specialist than a general physician,for that matter,the former's advise are more likely to be followed than the latter's,which can also lead to the declined recuperation time of the first group.

Second,some of the important virables,which are the premise of the argument,are not mentioned,such as the level of the patients' muscle strain,the ages of the patients,and the number of the patients in each group.There is large possibility that the average level of the muscle strain in each group are not equal,for example the second is much severer than the first,or the ages of the two groups are not in the same level,for example the second group are mostly in their sixties' or seventies',while the first group are  youngster whose physical conditions are more advantageous to their recuperation than the old ones.And the number of the patients in each group must be the same if the arguer want to do effective comparison.If one group has more members than the other,it is more likely that it will take longer for all its patients to recover from the same extent of strain under the same condition. (这个理由不好，注意是考查的平均时间，样本越大越精确，问题出在样本是不是太少了)Unless all these virables are well controlled the same,the argument process will not be valid because of the lack of enough essential premises.

Even if the lacking factors listed above is controlled the same,the arguer commits the fallacy of hasty overgeneralization,by jumping to the conclusion of "all patients" with muscle strain should take antibiotics, from the experiment result of only a minority of people and an average effect of those people.As is said by the arguer"their recuperation time was ,on average,40 percent quicker",we cannot reclude(没查到 conclude?) that some patients in the first group recovered slower than typically expected,and taking antibiotics are not helpful for them.Even though all the patients in the first group recovered sooner than expected, there is no evidence that that part of people are well(good?) representative of all patients outside the experiment.Maybe the patients in the first group are all having light muscle strain,yet the antibiotics are no longer effective when used to deal with severe muscle strain problem.So a lot more research work need to be done and a variety of exceptions should be taken into account before the arguer conclude that antibiotics is advisable to all patients with muscle strain.(这段有些理由略有重复，如伤轻重的问题等等，虽说侧重点不同，另外有slower的也有可能是个别现象，毕竟考查的是平均时间，这个理由感觉有漏洞，个人看法不是很成熟)

In sum,when an arguer is trying to make valid argument by comparison,all the factors except the subject factor should be well controlled the same,otherwise,the contrast of the result should not be attributable to the subject  factor.And preliminary result of any typical experiment involving a small minority  cannot be applied to all, unless there has been proved no exception.

总的来说写得不错，理由也很清晰，另外能写到600＋真不容易
ARGUMENT我还不是很了解，所以看法很不成熟。
另外 virable这个词真没查到，换成factor吧
其他也说不出什么了，就这样吧....

zmjxf2008UID: 2597395

The arguer tries to prove that patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics to prevent secondary infections so as to reduce their recuperation time,citing the comparison study of two groups of patients, one of which took antibiotics regularly, the other took sugar pills instead.The argument by comparison seems valid,but when we probe into the details and uncontrolled variables in the process, the conclusion is more proofless than founded.

First,the arguer has overlooked other different factors in the process which is crucial to the result of comparison.For example,the first group are treated by a sports medicine specialist,while the second are treated by a general physician.This difference will to a large extent lead to the incorrectness of the result.As common sense tells, a specialist is alway more knowledgeable and more experienced in his field than a general doctor,so there is a great chance that the specialist in sports medicine chooses more effective healing medicine than the physician apart from antibiotics, which will definitely make the first group recover sooner.And patients alway tend to trust a specialist than a general physician,for that matter,the former's advise are more likely to be followed than the latter's,which can also lead to the declined recuperation time of the first group.

Second,some of the important variables,which are the premise of the argument,are not mentioned,such as the level of the patients' muscle strain and the ages of the patients.There is large possibility that the average level of the muscle strain in each group are not equal,for example the second is much severer than the first,or the ages of the two groups are not in the same level,for example the second group are mostly in their sixties' or seventies',while the first group are  youngster whose physical conditions are more advantageous to their recuperation than the old ones.And the number of the patients in each group must be the same if the arguer want to do effective comparison.Unless all these variables are well controlled the same,the argument process will not be valid because of the lack of enough essential premises.

Even if the lacking factors listed above is controlled the same,the arguer commits the fallacy of hasty overgeneralization,by jumping to the conclusion of "all patients" with muscle strain should take antibiotics, from the experiment result of only a minority of people and an average effect of those people.As is said by the arguer"their recuperation time was ,on average,40 percent quicker",we cannot exclude that some patients in the first group recovered slower than typically expected,and taking antibiotics are not helpful for them.Even though all the patients in the first group recovered sooner than expected, there is no evidence that that part of people are well representative of all patients outside the experiment.Maybe the patients in the first group are all having light muscle strain,yet the antibiotics are no longer effective when used to deal with severe muscle strain problem.So a lot more research work need to be done and a variety of exceptions should be taken into account before the arguer conclude that antibiotics is advisable to all patients with muscle strain.
In sum,when an arguer is trying to make valid argument by comparison,all the factors except the subject factor should be well controlled the same,otherwise,the contrast of the result should not be attributable to the subject  factor.And preliminary result of any typical experiment involving a small minority  cannot be applied to all, unless there has been proved no exception.

greenxsUID: 2529289

The arguer tries to prove that patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics to prevent secondary infections so as to reduce their recuperation time,（正用个句号会好些吧） by citing the comparison study of two groups of patients, one of which took antibiotics regularly, the other took sugar pills instead.加个连词however, the argument by comparison seems valid,(but) when we probe into the details and uncontrolled variables in the process, the conclusion is more proofless than founded.

First,the arguer has overlooked other different factors in the process which is crucial to the result of comparison.For example,the first group are treated by a sports medicine specialist,while the second are treated by a general physician.This difference will (to a large extent)这个短语可以直接用在will后面么， lead to the incorrectness of the result.As common sense tells, a specialist is always more knowledgeable and more experienced in his field than a general doctor,so there is a great chance that the specialist in sports medicine chooses more effective healing medicine than the physician apart from antibiotics, which will definitely make the first group recover sooner.And patients always tend to trust a specialist than a general physician,for that matter,the former's advise (are more likely to be followed than the latter's,which ) 这是什么意思呢，我觉得可以不要吧，can also lead to the declined recuperation time of the first group.

Second,some of the important variables,which are the premise of the argument,are not mentioned,such as the level of the patients' muscle strain and the ages of the patients.There is large possibility that the average level of the muscle strain in each group are not equal,for example the second is much severer than the first,or the ages of the two groups are not in the same level,for instance the second group are mostly in their sixties' or seventies',while the first group are  youngster whose physical conditions are more advantageous （to their recuperation ）than the old ones.And the number of the patients in each group must be the same if the arguer want to do effective comparison.Unless all these variables are well controlled the same,the argument process will not be valid because of the lack of enough essential premises.

Even if the lacking factors listed above is controlled the same,the arguer commits the fallacy of hasty overgeneralization,by jumping to the conclusion that "all patients" with muscle strain should take antibiotics, from the experiment result of only a minority of people and an average effect of those people. 这句话是没有主语的，可以把标点删了 As is said by the arguer"their recuperation time was ,on average,40 percent quicker",we cannot exclude that some patients in the first group recovered slower than typically expected,and taking antibiotics are not helpful for them.Even though all the patients in the first group recovered sooner than expected, there is no evidence that that part of people are well representative of all patients outside the experiment.Maybe the patients in the first group are all having light muscle strain,yet the antibiotics are no longer effective when used to deal with severe muscle strain problem.So a lot more research work need to be done and a variety of exceptions should be taken into account before the arguer concludes that antibiotics is advisable to all patients with muscle strain.
In sum,when an arguer is trying to make valid argument by comparison,all the factors except the subject factor should be well controlled the same,otherwise,the contrast of the result should not be attributable to the subject  factor.And preliminary result of any typical experiment involving a small minority  cannot be applied to all, unless there has been proved no exception.

这个结尾是你自己写的么，还是参考的呢，我觉得写的太专业了吧，如果是你自己写的，那很强大，请翻译一下，如果不是，我觉得可以写的稍微简单点~\(≧▽≦)/~因为感觉跟文章不是很融

F~~~

3# zmjxf2008

zmjxf2008UID: 2597395

结尾是自己写的啊, 我觉得看不懂也正常,因为有些意思我想表达可能又不知道专业的术语是怎么说的,我翻译一下是这样的:
In sum,when an arguer is trying to make valid argument by comparison,all the factors except the subject factor should be well controlled the same,otherwise,the contrast of the result should not be attributable to the subject  factor.And preliminary result of any typical experiment involving a small minority  cannot be applied to all, unless there has been proved no exception.
总的来说,如果想要通过比较来进行有效的论证, 除了目标因子外所有的因子都应该被控制使之相同,否则,实验结果的差别就不能归因于目标因子的差别. 而且,任何只选择一小部分对象所做典型实验的初步结果,除非已排除了例外情况,都不能推及到所有的人.
我每次从中文翻译到英文的时候都很容易写的特罗嗦, 帮我看看应该怎么表达更好.
4# greenxs

greenxsUID: 2529289

我觉得这个阅卷人是不是不一定能看明白呢。。。。
或者也可能会因为很专业而加分。。。

zmjxf2008UID: 2597395

恩，挺同意你说的，我还是应该积累一些比较地道准确的表达句子。 6# greenxs

zmjxf2008UID: 2597395

The arguer tries to prove that patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics to prevent secondary infections so as to reduce their recuperation time. By citing the comparison study of two groups of patients, one of which took antibiotics regularly, the other took sugar pills instead, the argument  seems valid, however, when we probe into the details and uncontrolled variables in the process, the conclusion is more proofless than founded.

First,the arguer has overlooked other different factors in the process which is crucial to the result of comparison.For example,the first group are treated by a sports medicine specialist,while the second are treated by a general physician.This difference will lead to the incorrectness of the result. As common sense tells, a specialist is always more knowledgeable and more experienced in his field than a general doctor,so there is a great chance that the specialist in sports medicine chooses more effective healing medicine than the physician apart from antibiotics, which will definitely make the first group recover sooner.And patients always tend to trust a specialist rather than a general physician,for that matter,the specialist's advise is more likely to be followed ,which can also lead to the declined recuperation time of the first group.

Second,some of the important variables,which are the premises of the argument,are not mentioned,such as the level of the patients' muscle strain and the ages of the patients.There is large possibility that the average level of the muscle strain in each group is not equal,for example the second is much severer than the first,or the ages of the two groups are not in the same level,for instance the second group are mostly in their sixties' or seventies',while the first group are  youngster whose physical conditions are more advantageous to their recuperation than the old ones.And the number of the patients in each group must be the same if the arguer want to do effective comparison.Unless all these variables are well controlled the same,the argument process will not be valid because of the lack of enough essential premises.

Even if the lacking factors listed above is controlled the same,the arguer commits the fallacy of hasty overgeneralization, jumping to the conclusion that "all patients" with muscle strain should take antibiotics  from the experiment result of only a minority of people and an average effect of those people. As is said by the arguer"their recuperation time was ,on average,40 percent quicker",we cannot exclude that some patients in the first group recovered slower than typically expected,and taking antibiotics is not helpful for them.Even though all the patients in the first group recovered sooner than expected, there is no evidence that that part of people are well representative of all patients outside the experiment.Maybe the patients in the first group are all having light muscle strain,yet the antibiotics are no longer effective when used to deal with severe muscle strain problem.So a lot more research work need to be done and a variety of exceptions should be taken into account before the arguer concludes that antibiotics is advisable to all patients with muscle strain.
In sum,when an arguer is trying to make valid argument by comparison,all the factors except the subject factor should be well controlled the same,otherwise,the contrast of the result should not be attributable to the subject  factor.And preliminary result of any typical experiment involving a small minority  cannot be applied to all, unless there has been proved no exception.