0910G[North America Flying]Argument51 by FarseeR

ystyleUID: 2454212

Argument第一次限时写，恩，写得有点怪，我只写了两个flaws...到写第三个的时候时间久不够了，就没写。。。请楼下帮我看看，我这2个反驳的地方哪里可以省略些呢，有没这个必要？。。。还有就是我写的不是很顺。。。可能也浪费了一些时间。。。

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: 351          TIME: 00:29:15          DATE: 2009/7/21 22:05:48

The author of the newsletter recommends that patients who are diagnosed with muscle stain should take the antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify his or her conclusion, the arguer points out that by carrying out a study of two groups of patients who suffer from the muscle strain problem, people who took antibiotics regularly would shorten their recuperation time than those who do not adopt this method. However, close scrutiny of this argument reveals that it contains several flaws, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

Firstly, the study provided by the author of this medical newsletter is insufficient for us to reach the conclusion, the arguer just tells us there are two groups of patients who face the same situation, as the severe muscle strain problem. Nevertheless, many other essential factors are ignored in the study. We need to know the detailed information of the groups, such as the distribution of ages and sex and the severity of injuries of the both groups. Lacking further studied on these important issues, the arguer could not hastily conclude that antibiotic is the only element that affect the result of the study.

Secondly, in the argument, the author only offers us the information that the difference between treatments of the two groups is the antibiotic employment to illustrate the significant role in the therapy that antibiotic are. Albeit the variation between them might actually influence the treatment, there are myriad of factors which, if differ in some cases, would bring the entirely different result of the study. For example, perhaps Dr. Newland not only took antibiotics regularly to the patients, but he also adopts an extra therapy we don't know to cure the muscle strain or the secondary infections. Without any further considerations about these factors, the arguer could not convince us that it is the antibiotics affection, not others.

To sum up, the argument is indefensible and unpersuasive. To bolster it, the author of the newsletter must show more consideration about the study he or she carried out, and must exclude some other possibilities, otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.

fake2009UID: 2631119

时间没来得及，咱就说说写上来的这么多
这篇攻击点集中在这个不完善的study 推不出 服用antibiotics的科学性

Firstly, the study provided by the author of this medical newsletter is insufficient for us to reach the conclusion, the arguer just tells us there are two groups of patients who face the same situation, as the severe muscle strain problem. Nevertheless, many other essential factors are ignored in the study. We need to know the detailed information of the groups, such as the distribution of ages and sex and the severity of injuries of the both groups. Lacking further studied on these important issues, the arguer could not hastily conclude that antibiotic is the only element that affect the result of the study.
提到了分组的不科学性，这个显然是一个最大最好攻击的flaw了，提出三个点---年龄，性别(用gender可能更好)，伤势程度
每个细小的flaw，都不能否认有展开说的必要，这个地方太概括了。我觉得展开说更加convincing，比如可能第一组都是年轻，伤的不轻，身体素质好的，恢复起来自然比第二组都是年老的，伤得重，身体素质欠佳的要快很多，根本就可以忽略antibiotics在里边起作用。展开说的话，可能攻击点没讲完，但是字数也够了，也不能挑出说你的文章不够persuasive了。把每个点说透，嗯...我是这么觉得的哈

Secondly, in the argument, the author only offers us the information that the difference between treatments of the two groups is the antibiotic employment to illustrate the significant role in the therapy that antibiotic are. Albeit the variation between them(them指的是虾米？) might actually influence the treatment, there are myriad of factors which, if differ in some cases, would bring the entirely different result of the study.(读来这句话也没什么实际内容，却还这么绕人)For example, perhaps Dr. Newland not only took antibiotics regularly to the patients, but he also adopts an extra therapy we don't know to cure the muscle strain or the secondary infections. Without any further considerations about these factors, the arguer could not convince us that it is the antibiotics affection, not others.
你其实就是想说两个医生除了antibiotic，米有排除使用不同therapy的干扰，怎样的therapy可以讲一讲的哇，康复训练啊之类的，感觉是依赖模板太多，攻击该具体的还是要具体一些。

另外，文章还有值得攻击的地方。刚开始限时，来不及不奇怪，可以先用模板凑凑字数不是不可取，但是到了后期，要有比模板更出彩的句子可以写出来，更贴近具体的例子一些的句子