ARGUMENT总是写不完。。。

peterboyUID: 2638100

如题，我argument总是写不完，写完开头就已经6、7分钟过去了，再把中间段每一段第一句话（找错误）先写好，把结尾写好，基本上已经只有10分钟不到了。。。 然后再返回去补足中间段，一般最多补完2个中间段就没时间了。。。 我一般模考软件跳出后再写完还要10MIN左右，字数始终在550左右下不去啊。。。

大家说我该怎么办？还有5天就要考了 ISSUE还有6类没有写提纲呢。。。。。。。。

peterboyUID: 2638100

谁来帮我疑难解惑一下？:L

莫非是我写的太多了？现贴上一篇，望大家能帮我分析原因，谢谢！！！


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: 549          TIME: OT        DATE: 2009/8/6 11:49:08

In this argument, the arguer attempts to convince us that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this conclusion, the arguer provides the evidence that muscle-injured people who take antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment recover much quicker than people who take sugar pills. This argument seems specific and reasonable at first glance, after a close scrutiny of it, however, we can find out that it rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and therefore is unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with the experiment which the argument depends on is not statistically reliable. Lacking information about the number of each group of patients as well as the distribution of the gender, the age and the physical conditions of them, it is impossible to assess the validity of the experiment. Even though these patients are comparable and therefore representative, the experiment can still hardly believed as it was carried in different atmosphere by different doctors. It is highly possible that Dr. Newland is much more professional or experienced than Dr. Alton in medical treatment as the former is a doctor specializes in sports medicine while the latter is just a general physician. Meanwhile, the atmosphere in the first group might be optimistic than the second thus influences the result. Without ruling out such differences, the arguer cannot draw any firm conclusion based on the experiment.

In addition, the arguer groundlessly assumes that muscle strain bears some relationship to secondary infections; however, he or she provides no evidence to support this is the case, nor does the he or she establish a causal relationship between them. If only a small portion of muscle strained people get infected, there is no need for all patients to take antibiotics. Even admitting that the overwhelming majority of muscle-strained patients get secondary infections cannot we draw the conclusion firmly that antibiotics are effective for preventing infections? It is true that antibiotics can kill some viruses and bacteria thus eliminating infections. While some other viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated. There is a great chance that the antibiotics make no differences while the sugar pills contribute to the growth of the viruses or bacteria. Consequently, the conclusion that antibiotics contribute to the prevention of secondary infections is unwarranted.

Finally, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the experiment is persuasive, we can never make a hasty conclusion that every muscle strain patient should take antibiotics. It's unknown to us whether antibiotics has some side effect or not, such as headache or stomachache. As we all know, some people are allergic to antibiotics hence it will be foolish and presumptuous to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Before experimenting carefully the new treatment cannot be applied.

  From what has been discussed above, the argument is wholly unpersuasive and unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the conclusion the arguer must provide more information about the carried experiment to prove it is comparable and representative. Also, the arguer must point out that there is a certain causal relation between muscle strain and secondary infections and tell the probability of this happening. To better assess the conclusion, we need more details about the other effects of antibiotics to identify the feasibility of the new therapy.

草木也知愁UID: 2487572

看一下这个吧：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=923452&highlight=