|
In this analysis, the author claims that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the results of a study of two groups of patients treated by different doctors taking different treatments-- one is antibiotics and the other is sugar pills. In addition, the arguer assumes that secondary infections which may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain have been proved by preliminary results of this study. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.
First of all, the arguer’s conclusion is based on a possible known correlation between the study and the influence of secondary infection on severe muscle strain. That is, which has been proved, the latter keeps some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. (这句话的语法有点混乱，所以以我的理解给改的.有一点特别不明白，就是二次感染的影响和研究之间有什么相关性) Yet, the correlation alone amounts to scant evidence of the claimed cause-and-effect relationship. In the study of two groups of patients, neither of them is mentioned that it is （这里把by去掉，否则句子成分不全，应该是叫后置主语吧…） secondary infection that keeps them from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. On the contrary, in the study, only the method that can accelerate their recuperation is discussed. Lacking necessary information about the correlation between secondary infection and the recuperation in the study, the author can not convince me that it is secondary infections which may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain.
As for the study about the correlation between cureness and the measure, which is contributable to the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, the arguer fails to consider several other relevant factors that may influence the results of the study. First, the study does not take the degree of the injury into consideration. It is probable the injuries of first group treated by Dr. Newland are minor compared to the second one. Second, the study overlooks the importance of the doctors. Generally speaking, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine is better than a general physician in muscle problems in other treatments except antibiotics, such as massage occasionally on the muscles and the guidance about certain exercises, which also plays a vital role in the recuperation. So, it is hard to conclude that it is the antibiotics that cure the injury. (这句话的意思我明白了，但是总觉得你的表达上有点小小的问题)
As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to give us more clear evidence to rule out other possible causes of the first group’s quick recuperation. And he/she also has to provide more information about the cause-and-effect relationship between secondary infection and the study.
通过改你的这篇文章，我觉得你在用词方面很灵活，让我学习到很多经验，我可都记下来了，呵呵~但是， 在我认为，你的文章还有部分的不足，其中最重要的一点就是语法真的有点混乱。你太经常用些从句，而且是从句里面连环套，最终的结果就是把我绕晕了...说实话，读起来真的很拗口。就文章来说，我个人认为你的第二部分原因陈述的比第一部分清楚而且有说服力。第一部分的话，有点乱，我很多都没看懂，所以也不多做评论。开头和结尾都很好，冒昧地问下，你用模板了吗？不管怎么样，写的真不错。 另外，我建议你以后写完一篇文章的话自己用word检查一下拼写和语法，这样自己发现的错误一般印象会比较深刻~
[ 本帖最后由 1shiaiwode 于 2009-1-19 14:26 编辑 ] | 
GO
发表于 2009-1-19 14:25:45
0
转发
