argument51 同主题写作第十期，请多多指教！

moqi0UID: 2158626

第一篇

Argument51 提纲
实验设置的问题：
1、No evidences show the two group of guinea-pigs are identical or at least similar.
2、The two doctors who took charge of the experiment might have marked differences between their experience and qualification. And their individual therapies would make the effects of the treatment different.
3、The use of sugar pills might have a counteraction on the healing.
实验推论的问题：
The author cannot suggest all the patients take antibiotics according to the hypothesis that only part of patients to be related.//

WORDS: 542          TIME: 0:39:49          DATE: 2006-3-4
In this newsletter excerpt, the author concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment to help them heal quickly. To support this conclusion the author points out a hypothesis that secondary infections would have counteraction on the healing of these kinds of patients. The author also cites an experiment in two groups of patients, in which the group taking antibiotics heal faster than the other one. The author's argument is problematic in several respects, rending the argument unconvincing as it stands.

The argument's chief problem is that it relies on numerous unsubstantiated assumptions about the experiment. One such assumption is that the physiological conditions of the two groups of patients are identical or at least similar. Yet logic and common sense inform me that it is quite possible that one of the group suffer from more serious injuring. This may be the very reason that the progress of healing of this group is slower. In short, without considering the different physiological conditions, the author cannot justifiably conclude that the result of quicker healing is due to the effect of antibiotics.

Even if the extent of strain of two groups is equal, the scientific reliability of the experiment's results is questionable. There may be a wide gap between the two doctors who direct the experiment separately in their experience and qualification. The author does not provide any evidence to show the two therapies have same efficiency on patients. For example, Dr. Newland, a doctor who sepcialized in sports medicine, has more experience handling muscle stain and his therapy has been proved successful on many athletes. Meanwhile, Dr.Alton just graduated from university and has not treated any patients himself before. If it is the truth, the result of the experiment is ceitainly deducible.

Even if the two doctors have equal qualification and use the same therapy, one can not infer that antibiotics help the patients. I notice that in this experiment, the other group is given sugar pills as a psycological substitute. And no evidence explains the sugar pills would not have counteration on the muscle strain. Provided they will defer the healing of muscle strain, then the comparability in this experiment will be specious.

Aside from the problems involving the experiment, the author’s conclusion that secondary infections keep the patients from healing quickly is also unwarranted. While it still remains the state of hypothesis, the author has not sufficient reason to suggest all the patients of muscle strain take antibiotics as part of their treatment. There are lots of potential possibilities that interfere with the healing of this kind of strain. For those patients, it might be useless or even worse to take antibiotics.

In conclusion, the author’s argument is not persuasive. To bolster it he must provide clearer evidence that the experiment is designed on an objective and conclusive basis. Such evidence might include the following: a suvey proving that secondary infections are the primary reasons that keep the patients from healing; an observation report showing that the therapies of two doctors have the same efficiency; another experiment revealling sugar pills have no counteraction; and diagnosises from authorities that all the patients in the experiment have the strain of the same extent.

第二篇

WORDS: 402          TIME: 0:25:05          DATE: 2006-3-5

The author of this newsletter excerpt concludes that all patients suffering muscle strain should take antibioicts so that they can heal quickly. To support this conclusion, the author put forward a hypothesis about the interference from secondary infections on severe muscle strain. He also cites an experiment to evidence the antibioicts would have efficiency to this kind of circumstance. However, this argument is problematic in several logic respects, rending the argument unconvincing as it stands.

The chief problem in this argument is that the hypothesis as a prerequisite stated in the begining is insufficient to deduce the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibioicts. Firstly, one of significant conditions in the prerequisite comes up as it is secondary infections that might interfere with the treatment. Meanwhile, the author's conclusion obviously does not refer this piont; as a result, those patients not having any infections are included in the eventual recommendation. Secondly, the hypothesis also mentions just part of patients having secondary infections heal slowly. But the author arbitrarily enlarges the scope of the patients who may take the related treatment without any explanations. Furthermore, the author overlooks the fact that such phenomenon only occurs after severe muscle strain. In short, the author draws a conclusion that is broader in scope than is warranted by the prerequisite advanced, for all the three factors above are omitted in his final conclusion.

Aside from the problems invoving the prerequisite, the experiment sopporting the prerequisite is also unsound, for it relies on numerous unsubstantiated assumptions. One such assumption is that the physiological conditions of the two groups are identical or at least similar. Yet logic and common sense inform me that it is entirely possible that one of the group suffer from more serious injury. This may be the very reason that the progress of healing of this group is slower. On the other hand, the author even does not provide any evidence to show the therapies those two doctors using have the same efficiency, not to mention the potential counteraction from sugar pills.

In conclusion, the author’s argument is not persuasive. To bolster it he must provide clearer evidence that the experiment is designed on an objective and conclusive basis. Which is more crucial is that more detailed diagnosises should be exhibited including all kinds of features in different stages of most patients’ therapeutic processes.

撇开路数的新尝试，但是写完看看觉得例证显得很草率，不知道这样的文章在实战中会不会分数很低？

[ 本帖最后由 moqi0 于 2006-3-5 21:16 编辑 ]

白衣笨天使UID: 144754

In this newsletter excerpt, the author concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment to help them heal quickly. To support this conclusion the author points out a hypothesis that secondary infections would have counteraction on the healing of these kinds of patients. The author also cites an experiment in two groups of patients, in which the group taking antibiotics heal faster than the other one. The author's argument is problematic in several respects, rending the argument unconvincing as it stands.[我可不可以称之为“传统开头法”？看着这样的开头好熟悉啊！跟我的一样~~这是好事还是坏事？]

The argument's chief problem is that it relies on numerous unsubstantiated assumptions about the experiment. One such assumption is that the physiological conditions of the two groups of patients are identical or at least similar. Yet logic and common sense inform me that it is quite possible that one of the group suffer from more serious injuring. [groups，suffers或者直接说the second group? 呵呵！改了一晚上作文了，终于我可以替点修改意见了…] This may be the very reason that the progress of healing of this group[连用两个of是必须的么？用in this group行不行？] is slower. In short, without considering the different physiological conditions, the author cannot justifiably conclude that the result of quicker healing is due to the effect of antibiotics.[是不是不够具体啊？只举了个more serious injuring。]

Even if the extent of strain of two groups is equal, the scientific reliability of the experiment's results is questionable. There may be a wide gap between the two doctors who direct the experiment separately in their experience and qualification. The author does not provide any evidence to show the two therapies have same efficiency on patients. For example, Dr. Newland, a doctor who specialized in sports medicine, has more experience handling muscle stain and his therapy has been proved successful on many athletes. Meanwhile, Dr.Alton just graduated from university and has not treated any patients himself before. If it is the truth, the result of the experiment is ceitainly [certainly] deducible.

Even if the two doctors have equal qualification and use the same therapy, one can not infer that antibiotics help the patients. I notice that in this experiment, the other group is given sugar pills as a psycological [psychological] substitute. And no evidence explains the sugar pills would not have counteration [counteraction?] on the muscle strain. Provided they will defer the healing of muscle strain, then the comparability in this experiment will be specious.

Aside from the problems involving the experiment, the author’s conclusion that secondary infections keep the patients from healing quickly is also unwarranted. While it still remains the state of hypothesis, the author has not sufficient reason to suggest all the patients of muscle strain take antibiotics as part of their treatment. There are lots of potential possibilities that interfere with the healing of this kind of strain. For those patients, it might be useless or even worse to take antibiotics. [还是没有具体例子，还是说这样的举例就可以了？]
[正文段落没有用连接词开头，这种写法好么？这样思路也还是挺清晰的，我觉得。]

In conclusion, the author’s argument is not persuasive. To bolster it he must provide clearer evidence that the experiment is designed on an objective and conclusive basis. Such evidence might include the following: a suvey [survey] proving that secondary infections are the primary reasons that keep the patients from healing; an observation report showing that the therapies of two doctors have the same efficiency; another experiment revealling [revealing]sugar pills have no counteraction; and diagnosises from authorities that all the patients in the experiment have the strain of the same extent.


好像我也没提出什么有建设性的意见，只是帮忙改了几个拼写错误，word干的事儿。:L

我的作文来拍来拍，多谢！
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

windflowerplusUID: 2193058

第一反应，好长……30分钟的东西不可能面面俱到，写这么长的话打字都痛苦……比如说第一段的总结，在我看来就有点冗余，点到了直接开批就ok。

其次比较醒目的是，连着两段even if的开头，这个感觉是比较忌讳的，模板不一定要有，但是基本的几个拍砖模式一定要熟，一来节约时间，二来保证底线分数。

至于内容嘛，建议看看以下这篇牛帖……正好举的这个例子

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... id%3D100&page=1

[ 本帖最后由 windflowerplus 于 2006-3-5 03:23 编辑 ]

moqi0UID: 2158626

多谢指正！
汗颜！居然犯了这么多拼写错误。因为逼自己在30分左右完成，每段阐述得都不够充分。牛贴看了，受益匪浅，决心今晚再写一篇！

moqi0UID: 2158626

even if 开头很忌讳吗？我看很多北美范文都是这样开的啊？

白衣笨天使UID: 144754

是啊，even if 不能用么？我好像刚在一篇范文里看到，也才学的...

PS：多谢moqi哦~~
+UUUUUUUU....

wenyuZUID: 2113611

已经把你的文章拷下来了哦！我打算最先改你的哈，下午给你贴上来#

有缘有缘有缘呢。

把我的链接也贴过来，希望互相帮助啦、
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... e%3D1#pid1768227619

我也是新手，大家多多加油哦

第二篇

WORDS: 402          TIME: 0:25:05          DATE: 2006-3-5

The author of this newsletter excerpt concludes that all patients suffering muscle strain should take antibioicts单词拼写错误很明显了 so that they can heal quickly. To support this conclusion, the author put forward a hypothesis about the interference from secondary infections on severe muscle strain. He also cites an experiment to evidence the antibioicts同上 would have efficiency toin 吧？ this kind of circumstance. However, this argument is problematic in several logic respects, rending the argument unconvincing as it stands.很有模版的味道。。也restate的嫌疑。再放开点写哦

The chief problem in this argument is that the hypothesis as a prerequisite stated in the beginning双写啦 is insufficient to deduce the conclusion似乎不用再跟个从句了吧，因为第一段已经提到过的，再写的话就有点重复哦 that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibioicts拼写错误. Firstly, one of significant conditions in the prerequisite comes up as it is secondary infections that might interfere with the treatment. Meanwhile用个表转折的词汇可能会好些, the author's conclusion obviously does not refer this point拼写错误; as a result, those patients not having any infections are included in the eventual recommendation再增加些具体后果，比如可以这样说，which make the patients suffer from undue treatment. Secondly, the hypothesis also mentions just part of patients having secondary infections heal slowly. But the author arbitrarily enlarges the scope of the patients who may take the related treatment without any explanations. Furthermore, the author overlooks the fact that such phenomenon only occurs after severe muscle strain. In short, the author draws a conclusion that is broader in scope有待确定这样的表达用词是否准确？ than is warranted by the prerequisite advanced, for all the three factors above are omitted in his final conclusion.看得我有点晕哈。从全文布局来看，你似乎把批驳的重点放在这段了。可是这段批驳的部分只是原文中比较小的一个漏洞哈。

Aside from the problems invoving再次拼写错误 the prerequisite, the experiment sopporting the prerequisite is also unsound, for it relies on numerous unsubstantiated assumptions. One such assumption is that the physiological conditions of the two groups are identical or at least similar. Yet logic and common sense inform me that it is entirely possible that one of the group suffer from more serious injury. This may be the very reason that the progress of healing of this group is slower. On the other hand, the author even does not provide any evidence to show the therapies those two doctors using have the same efficiency, not to mention the potential counteraction from sugar pills不能from表达吧？看这样是不是要好些：the potential counteraction that sugar pills may play.觉得读起来有点怪怪的。。。

In conclusion, the author’s argument is not persuasive. To bolster it he must provide clearer evidence that the experiment is designed on an objective and conclusive basis. Which is more crucial is that more detailed diagnosises should be exhibited including all kinds of features in different stages of most patients’ therapeutic processes.最后一句of用得太多了，有点中文的感觉。。。
总的来说，批驳的地方都是对的，但似乎重点分布有点欠考虑哦，还有每个批驳的地方都好象只是点到为止，有血有肉展开批驳的地方很少哈。这样是批驳说理显得比较单薄哦。
句式方面读起来有点别扭。有中文硬翻过来的影子。还有句子间的联系比较生硬。句式变化也比较简单，所以文采方面多加油啦！还有拼写拼写哈。
感觉自己多挑剔的。不知道挑得对不对。有不对的地方多多包涵哈！
有时间请帮我改改我的作文哦！

[ 本帖最后由 wenyuZ 于 2006-3-6 16:16 编辑 ]

moqi0UID: 2158626

谢谢wenyuZ,改得真的很认真！
拼写一直是我的致命伤啊，头痛……

“看得我有点晕哈。从全文布局来看，你似乎把批驳的重点放在这段了。可是这段批驳的部分只是原文中比较小的一个漏洞哈”

我是看了“argument就该这么写”这篇贴后拟的第二篇的思路，但可能因为批驳得不够透彻，体现不出这一段的问题的严重性。而且觉得写的时候总是达不到思考时的力度。我先再练练别的题目，过阵子再来写一篇，看看回有什么提高。

确实有缘啊，以后大家要携手前进！