argument51 同主题写作第10期 互拍!

plum371UID: 193449

51.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."
医生长期以来怀疑严重肌肉扭伤后的二次感染妨碍了一些患者迅速康复。这一假说现在被一项对两组患者的研究的初步结果所证实。第一组患者全部由专攻运动医学的Dr. Newland治疗肌肉损伤，他们在疗程中经常服用抗生素。他们的康复期平均比通常预期的快40％。第二组患者由综合医师Dr. Alton治疗，他们被给予糖丸，而患者相信他们在服用抗生素。他们的平均康复时间没有明显缩短。因此，任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗。
In this argument,the writer tries to convince us that all patients with muscle strain should be advised to tank antibiotics as part of their treatment. I contend, however, a careful scrutiny would reveal several critical flaws as follows that undermine its reasoning.

To begin with, the reliability of the study of the two groups of patients needs to be called into question, since the writer fails to provide information like sex, age, occupation and so on about the patients from each group. For example, if patients of the first group are all the young athletes in possession of strong constitutions,while the patients of the second group are all the old people from different walks of life and with other diseases, chances would be good that the former would also recover more quickly than the latter, no matter whether they use antibiotics or not. Thus, absent specific information about patience of each group, the result of the study would prove unconvincing.

In addition, even if patients from the first and the second group have the same condition in every aspect, the writer cannot establish a cause relation between the faster recuperation of severe muscle strain and the use of antibiotics, disregarding a series other possible factors. For example, perhaps the Dr Newland of the first group who specializes in sports medicine is superior to Dr. Alton of the second group who is a general physician in terms of treating muscle strain which is usually caused by taking exercises; or perhaps the sugar pills given to the second group patients are of side effects which can hardly be observed but would constitute a menace to the recuperation of the patients. Hence, without ruling out all these and other possibilities, hard can I convince that taking antibiotics is the only factor contributing to a quicker recovery of patients from the first group in the study.

Finally, even if a more swift recovery of muscle strain is merely attributable to the use of antibiotics, the study does not support the writer’s broad conclusion that all patients diagnosed with such disease should be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Since the hypothesis proved by the study only refers to patients with sever muscle strain, it is entirely possible that patience with slight symptoms would not need to take them to prevent infections. Common sense also inform me that patients allergic to antibiotics should not take any of it. Therefore, the term all in the conclusion referring to a broader scope undermines the contention.

In sum, hardly can this argument prove persuasive due to lack of information and well round consideration mentioned above. To strengthen the contention, the writer must show that the use of antibiotics indeed contribute to a faster recovery of muscle strain, perhaps by a more credible study and more detailed and sufficient information.

savagettUID: 2134686

In this argument,the writer tries to convince us that all patients with muscle strain should be advised to tank antibiotics as part of their treatment. I contend, however, a careful scrutiny would reveal several critical flaws as follows that undermine its reasoning.
这个开头会不会写的太简单了?稍微在多说一句作者证明的方法...之类的?

To begin with, the reliability of the study of the two groups of patients needs to be called into question, since the writer fails to provide information like sex, age, occupation and so on about the patients from each group. For example, if patients of the first group are all the young athletes in possession of strong constitutions,while the patients of the second group are all the old people from different walks of life and with other diseases, chances would be good that the former would also recover more quickly than the latter, no matter whether (no matter 和whether还可以连用?)they use antibiotics or not. Thus, absent specific information about patience of each group, the result of the study would prove unconvincing.
攻击实验的过程.

In addition, even if patients from the first and the second group have the same condition in every aspect, the writer cannot establish a cause relation between the faster recuperation of severe muscle strain and the use of antibiotics, disregarding a series other possible factors. For example, perhaps the Dr Newland of the first group who specializes in sports medicine is superior to Dr. Alton of the second group who is a general physician in terms of treating muscle strain which is usually caused by taking exercises; or perhaps the sugar pills given to the second group patients are of side effects which can hardly be observed but would constitute a menace to the recuperation of the patients. Hence, without ruling out all these and other possibilities, hard can I convince that taking antibiotics is the only factor contributing to a quicker recovery of patients from the first group in the study.
攻击这个比较

Finally, even if a more swift recovery of muscle strain is merely attributable to the use of antibiotics, the study does not support the writer’s broad conclusion that all patients diagnosed with such disease should be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Since the hypothesis proved by the study only refers to patients with sever muscle strain, it is entirely possible that patience with slight symptoms would not need to take them to prevent infections. Common sense also inform me that patients allergic 形容词 to antibiotics should not take any of it. Therefore, the term all in the conclusion referring to a broader scope undermines the contention.
D.S.

In sum, hardly can this argument prove persuasive due to lack of information and well round consideration mentioned above. To strengthen the contention, the writer must show that the use of antibiotics indeed contribute to a faster recovery of muscle strain, perhaps by a more credible study and more detailed and sufficient information.

我觉得很不错了.
攻击的都很对,每段的TS也很清楚~~
拍手~~
我也写了这个的,写的时间很紧还语无伦次.

起球前UID: 2187041

In this argument,the writer tries to convince us that all patients with muscle strain should be advised to tank antibiotics as part of their treatment. I contend, however, a careful scrutiny would reveal several critical flaws as follows that undermine its reasoning.

To begin with, the reliability of the study of the two groups of patients needs to be called into question, since the writer fails to provide information like sex, age, occupation and so on about the patients from each group.since the writer fails to provide specific information about the patients from each group,like sex, age, occupation and so on. For example, if patients of the first group are all the young athletes in possession of strong constitutions,while the patients of the second group are all the old people from different walks of life and with other diseases, chances would be good that the former would also recover more quickly than the latter, no matter whether they use antibiotics or not. Thus, absent specific information about patience of each group, the result of the study would prove unconvincing.

In addition, even if patients from the first and the second group have the same condition in every aspect, the writer cannot establish a cause relation between the faster recuperation of severe muscle strain and the use of antibiotics, disregarding a series other possible factors. For example, perhaps the Dr Newland of the first group who specializes in sports medicine is superior to Dr. Alton of the second group who is a general physician in terms of treating muscle strain which is usually caused by taking exercises; or perhaps the sugar pills given to the second group patients are of side effects which can hardly be observed but would constitute a menace to the recuperation of the patientswhich can hardly be observed==how do you know?. Hence, without ruling out all these and other possibilities, hard can I convince that taking antibiotics is the only factor contributing to a quicker recovery of patients from the first group in the study.

Finally, even if a more swift recovery of muscle strain is merely attributable to the use of antibiotics, the study does not support the writer’s broad conclusion that all patients diagnosed with such disease should be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Since the hypothesis proved by the study only refers to patients with sever muscle strain, it is entirely possible that patience with slight symptoms would not need to take them to prevent infections. Common sense also inform me that patients allergic to antibiotics should not take any of it. Therefore, the term all in the conclusion referring to a broader scope undermines the contention.

In sum, hardly can this argument prove persuasive due to lack of information and well round consideration mentioned above. To strengthen the contention, the writer must show that the use of antibiotics indeed contribute to a faster recovery of muscle strain, perhaps by a more credible study and more detailed and sufficient information.


you did a great job!!

起球前UID: 2187041

In this argument,the writer tries to convince us that all patients with muscle strain should be advised to tank antibiotics as part of their treatment. I contend, however, a careful scrutiny would reveal several critical flaws as follows that undermine its reasoning.

To begin with, the reliability of the study of the two groups of patients needs to be called into question, since the writer fails to provide information like sex, age, occupation and so on about the patients from each group.since the writer fails to provide specific information about the patients from each group,like sex, age, occupation and so on. For example, if patients of the first group are all the young athletes in possession of strong constitutions,while the patients of the second group are all the old people from different walks of life and with other diseases, chances would be good that the former would also recover more quickly than the latter, no matter whether they use antibiotics or not. Thus, absent specific information about patience of each group, the result of the study would prove unconvincing.

In addition, even if patients from the first and the second group have the same condition in every aspect, the writer cannot establish a cause relation between the faster recuperation of severe muscle strain and the use of antibiotics, disregarding a series other possible factors. For example, perhaps the Dr Newland of the first group who specializes in sports medicine is superior to Dr. Alton of the second group who is a general physician in terms of treating muscle strain which is usually caused by taking exercises; or perhaps the sugar pills given to the second group patients are of side effects which can hardly be observed but would constitute a menace to the recuperation of the patientswhich can hardly be observed==how do you know?. Hence, without ruling out all these and other possibilities, hard can I convince that taking antibiotics is the only factor contributing to a quicker recovery of patients from the first group in the study.

Finally, even if a more swift recovery of muscle strain is merely attributable to the use of antibiotics, the study does not support the writer’s broad conclusion that all patients diagnosed with such disease should be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Since the hypothesis proved by the study only refers to patients with sever muscle strain, it is entirely possible that patience with slight symptoms would not need to take them to prevent infections. Common sense also inform me that patients allergic to antibiotics should not take any of it. Therefore, the term all in the conclusion referring to a broader scope undermines the contention.

In sum, hardly can this argument prove persuasive due to lack of information and well round consideration mentioned above. To strengthen the contention, the writer must show that the use of antibiotics indeed contribute to a faster recovery of muscle strain, perhaps by a more credible study and more detailed and sufficient information.


you did a great job!!

JackieXinUID: 2119346

2楼的板油，关于第一段，我的看法刚好和你相反，看了酸奶jj给的那个关于是否要restate原文的链接里面，imong gg的文章，我觉得还是不要restate的好，有点费力不讨好的感觉。但是imong gg说在第一段要有thesis，在ISSUE里面当然是可以的，但是在Argu里的thesis是什么呢？比如只简单的说一句原文的结论，然后再补充一句this argument有漏洞、不成立之类的话，可以算是thesis了么？

moqi0UID: 2158626

个人觉得条理清晰，攻击充分。医生问题和糖丸分成两段写是不是更好一些？sever muscle strain的问题我倒是忽略了。
另外，说个题外话，savagett的头像很眼熟，是不是“电车男”里的弟弟？很可爱````

[ 本帖最后由 moqi0 于 2006-3-4 22:42 编辑 ]