argument51 [Jet小组] 第四次作业～～迟到了～狠拍哈

leftkissUID: 2347956

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."

字数：469~迟到了~狠拍哈~~

In this medical newsletter, the arguer concludes that all patients who suffered from muscle strain should be persuaded to use antibiotics as part of their treatment. In order to justify the conclusion, the arguer drew a study of two group patients. However, considering that this examination is not parallel which violates the principle of testing, the argument seems to be suspicious. Moreover, the argument is also suffered from several critical flaws, which render it incredible as it stands.

A threshold problem with the argument lies in the presumption that the secondary infections would absolutely occur after severe muscle strain. The arguer provides no evidence, directly or indirectly, to support the assumption. Any treatment seemingly suit to heal muscle strain is untenable without solidify the basis that patients are apt to second infected after muscle strain.

Secondly, the conditions of two group patients are too vague to draw a certain conclusion let alone to make some speculation. As a common sense, a parallel experiment needs same physical status which is prerequisite. Whereas, this argument gave us no statement about the physical figure, quantity and other inquired number of the two group patients. Maybe the quantity of the experiment group is lower than the level to make some results, if it is the case, any conclusion drew from it is unconvinced. As well as, there are many other probabilities which would make experience useless without further details on it. On the other hand, aside from the physical distinction between the two groups, how can it be equal that one group treated by a doctor who specializes on sports medicine and the other by a general physician? The former probably have adequate experience in cure muscle strain. He may appeal to some useful methods such as massage as I assumed. The correct and accurate treatment might lead to average recuperation time significantly reduced rather than the antibiotics.

Thirdly, the arguer has not roll out the side effect of the sugar pills which might act detrimental to recovery. In addition, one group was given sugar pills although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. There is no evidence to illustrate the psychology have influence little on the recovery. Admittedly, I concede that antibiotics indubitable play a significant role in sterilization; nevertheless, side effect such as drug-resistance may be brought as well after abusing. Besides, considering that patients who are allergic to antibiotics should be ensured away from it in the first place. Consequently, the advice in this argument will not apply to all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain.

To sum up, the argument is not cogent. To corroborate it, the arguer must give evidence to solidify the presumption and provide sufficient information about the two groups of patients, as well as, roll out all other possibilities which would influence the experiment's result.

[ 本帖最后由 leftkiss 于 2008-2-11 22:40 编辑 ]

xiahsoulUID: 2441730

In this medical newsletter, the arguer concludes that all patients who suffered from muscle strain should be persuaded to use antibiotics as part of their treatment. In order to justify the conclusion, the arguer drew（没见过draw a study这样的说法 ，要不你试试conduct, cite?)a study of two group patients. However, considering that this examination is not parallel which violates the principle of testing(不知道你是不是说的是违背实验中应该相互平行的规则，觉得是不是要加一个parrlel with), the argument seems to be suspicious. Moreover, the argument is also suffered from several critical flaws, which render it incredible as it stands.

A threshold problem with the argument lies in the presumption that the secondary infections would absolutely occur after severe muscle strain. The arguer provides no evidence, directly or indirectly, to support the assumption. Any treatment seemingly suit to heal muscle strain is untenable without solidify the basis that patients are apt to second infected after muscle strain.(看到出来你在用词上下了功夫，:loveliness: ）

Secondly, the conditions of two group patients are too vague to draw a certain conclusion（+，） let alone to make some speculation（思考，这个词放在这里你是要表达什么意思？）. As a common sense, a parallel experiment needs same physical status(statement) which is prerequisite. Whereas, this argument gave us no statement(还可以用description, detailed information) about the physical figure, quantity and other inquired number of the two group patients. Maybe the quantity of the experiment group is lower than the level to make some results, if it is the case, any conclusion drew from it is unconvinced. As well as, there are many other probabilities which would make experience（experiment） useless（ + convincing)without further details on it. On the other hand, aside from the physical distinction between the two groups, how can it be equal that one group treated by a doctor who specializes on sports medicine and the other by a general physician? The former probably have adequate experience in cure muscle strain. He may appeal to some useful methods such as massage as I assumed. The correct and accurate treatment might lead to average recuperation time significantly reduced rather than the antibiotics.

Thirdly, the arguer has not roll(ruled) out the side effect of the sugar pills which might act detrimental to recovery. In addition, one group was given sugar pills although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. There is no evidence to illustrate the psychology have influence little on the recovery(不明白你是想表达什么意思，这里用糖丸来让他们以为吃的是抗生素就是排除心理因素对病人的影响） Admittedly, I concede that antibiotics indubitable play a significant role in sterilization; nevertheless, side effect such as drug-resistance may be brought as well after abusing. Besides, considering that patients who are allergic to antibiotics should be ensured away from it in the first place. Consequently, the advice in this argument will not apply to all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain.（这段很精彩）

To sum up, the argument is not cogent. To corroborate it, the arguer must give evidence to solidify the presumption and provide sufficient information about the two groups of patients, as well as, roll（rule) out all other possibilities which would influence the experiment's result.



[ 本帖最后由 xiahsoul 于 2008-2-12 11:17 编辑 ]

xiahsoulUID: 2441730

天啦，网太抽了
我改了两次  哦对了 你不用改我的ISSUE50 了 我舍弃教育类的不写了

leftkissUID: 2347956

speculation有没有推断的意思？
皑皑～我想词查词快神经了都……谢谢拉

yimengshanUID: 2392100

In thismedical newsletter, the arguer concludes that all patients who suffered frommuscle strain should be persuaded(说服某人干某事才用persuade，还是用advise吧) to use antibiotics as a part of their treatment. In order to justify theconclusion, the arguer drew a study of two group patients. However, consideringthat this examination is not parallel, and thereforeviolating (长句拆短更清楚简练)theprinciple of testing, the argument seems to be suspicious. Moreover, theargument is also suffered from several critical flaws,（用defect--缺陷可能比flaw—错误更严密） which render it incredible as itstands.

A threshold problem with the argument lies in the presumption that thesecondary infections would absolutely occur after severe muscle strain. Thearguer provides no evidence, directly or indirectly, to support the assumption.Any treatment seemingly suit to heal musclestrain is untenable without solidify the basis that patients are apt to second infected after muscle strain.（强悍！）Secondly, theconditions of two group patients are too vague to draw a certain conclusion letalone to make some speculation. As a common sense, a parallel experiment needssame（calls for the same） physical status which is prerequisite.Whereas, this argument gave us(provided) nostatement about the physical figure, quantity and other inquired number of thetwo group patients. Maybe the quantity of the experiment group is lower thanthe level to make some results, if it is the case, any conclusion drew from itis unconvinced(unconcincing). As well as(Also作为分层标志词更明显，个人认为), there are many other probabilities whichwould make experience useless without further details on it. On the other hand, aside from the physical distinctionbetween the two groups, how can it be equalthat （赞!）onegroup treated by a doctor who specializes on sports medicine and(while) the other by a general physician? The formerprobably have adequate experience in cure(curing) musclestrain. He (这儿直接用非限制性定语从句吧，把句号和he 改为who)mayappeal to some useful methods such as massage as I assumed. The correct andaccurate treatment might lead to average recuperation time significantlyreduced rather than the antibiotics.

Thirdly, the arguer has not rolled out the sideeffect of the sugar pills which might act detrimental to recovery. In addition,one group was given sugar pills although the patients believed they were takingantibiotics. There is no evidence to illustrate the psychology have influenced little on the recovery. Admittedly, I concede thatantibiotics indubitable play a significant role in sterilization; nevertheless,side effect such as drug-resistance may be brought as well after abusing.Besides, considering that patients who are allergic to antibiotics should beensured away from it in the first place. Consequently,(accordingly)the advice in this argument will not apply to all patients who arediagnosed with muscle strain.

To sum up, the argument is not cogent. To corroborate it, the arguer must giveevidence to solidify the presumption and provide sufficient information aboutthe two groups of patients, as well as, roll out all other possibilities whichwould influence the experiment's result.

你找的错误和我一样，用词也很好，出现了很多闪光句子，值得学习啊，继续努力！:)

[ 本帖最后由 yimengshan 于 2008-2-14 15:48 编辑 ]