Argument51 抗生素与肌肉拉伤 新人新作欢迎拍砖 越狠越好

白衣笨天使UID: 144754

写用时30分钟，我已经仔细修改过语法和拼写错误，不过可能还有漏网，实在抱歉！多谢进来看的朋友！
提纲：
1.质疑study，两组的比较不公平，一个是专业医师，一个是general doctor
2.还是study，两组参加的人员年龄，职业等
3.即使有效，也不是所有人都会感染
4.即使感染，可能有的人不能用，比如有什么胃病一类其他的病冲突

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: 470          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-3-4

In this argument, the arguer claims that all muscle-strained patients would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Then he provides an incredible study which includes some vague statistics to support his conclusion. As discussed below, this argument suffers from several logic flaws and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands. Hence, we can not concede that antibiotics should be recommended to all patients with muscle strains.

First of all, the study could not provide strong support to the conclusion since it uses a comparison between two groups without the same study environments. The first group is treated by a doctor specializing in sports medicine while the second group is treated by a general doctor. Hence, it is possible that the first group recuperate more quickly than the other group is not because they take antibiotics but because they have more special doctor.

Besides, there is no information about the members in the two groups. Whether are the patients in the two groups in the same status before they begin the treatment? Do the second group's patients hurt much harder? Or do the first groups' patients have some other effective medicines since they have a special doctor in sports medicine? And whether the patients in those two groups have the same age and the same professions? If the patients in group one are all young athletes and the patients in group two are all old office persons, the study's result is absolutely meaningless. In this case, the study does not lend any creditable support to this argument.

In addition, even if antibiotics can keep the muscle-strain patients from secondary infections, there is no evidence to show that antibiotics can make the patients recuperate more quickly. In fact, it is absolutely possible that not every patient has the risk to get the secondary infections. For those patients uneasy to infect, are antibiotics effective the same as those patients easy to get secondary infections? In this argument, we cannot find any relative information. Without that information, we can not accept the arguer's recommendation.

Finally, even if the antibiotics are effective for speeding up the recuperation of muscle-strain patients, whether should it be advised to take as a part of the treatment for all patients? The arguer fails to take into account and rules out such facts that some patients perhaps can not take any antibiotics because of their other disasters, such as gastritis and enteritis.

All in all, the arguer makes a arbitrary conclusion based on a unbelievable study by err. To bolster the argument, he should do a well-controlled study about the patients again and make some further study on the patients without secondary infections but healed slowly and provide some information of antibiotics' real effects. Without those further supports, this argument is incredible and not well reasoned.

Some questions：
1．        我这个开头算不算restate the argument？我很担心我的开头是太明显的套模版复述原文，可是又觉得很难在那么短的时间里组织一个好的开头。
2．        3，4段用了问句，不知道这样用算不算涵义清楚地设问？

多谢各位！小妹第一次发作文，有什么操作上不当还望指教。当然同样非常希望各位在写作上给点儿指点，Issue还没开始，现在Argu写成这个样子我很着急。

jupiterjoyUID: 161688

In this argument, the arguer claims that all muscle-strained patients would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Then he provides an incredible study which includes some vague statistics to support his conclusion. As discussed below, this argument suffers from several logic flaws and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands. Hence, we can not concede that antibiotics should be recommended to all patients with muscle strains. 感觉后两句换下位置更好。还有，我看过的文章里很少用we的

First of all, the study could not provide strong support to the conclusion since it uses a comparison between two groups without the same study environments别扭，环境氛围与实验条件有点差距吧。再说，对照肯定有不同。我是不是有些挑刺？The first group is treated by a doctor specializing in sports medicine while the second group is treated by a general doctor. Hence, it is possible that the first group recuperate more quickly than the other group is not because they take antibiotics but because they have more special doctor. 这里需要再细一点， 怎么个special法。

Besides, there is no information about the members in the two groups. Whether are the patients in the two groups in the same status before they begin the treatment?这没有语法问题?Are the patients … Do the second group's patients hurt much harder? Or do the first groups' patients have some other effective medicines since they have a special doctor in sports medicine?如果上段交代清楚，这句就删了吧 And whether the patients in those two groups have the same age and the same professions?the same profession If the patients in group one are all young athletes and the patients in group two are all old office persons, the study's result is absolutely meaningless. In this case, the study does not lend any creditable support to this argument.

In addition, even if antibiotics can keep the muscle-strain patients from secondary infections, there is no evidence to show that antibiotics can make the patients recuperate more quickly. In fact, it is absolutely possible that not every patient has the risk to get the secondary infections. For those patients uneasy to infect, are antibiotics effective the same as-- as effective as those patients easy to get secondary infections? In this argument, we cannot find any relative information. Without that information, we can not accept the arguer's recommendation.

Finally, even if the antibiotics are effective for speeding up the recuperation of muscle-strain patients, whether should it be advised to take antibiotics as a part of the treatment for all patients? The arguer fails to take into account and rules out such facts that some patients perhaps can not take any antibiotics because of their other disastershealthy problems, such as gastritis and enteritis.

All in all, the arguer makes a arbitrary conclusion based on a unbelievable study by err?. To bolster the argument, he should do a well-controlled study about the patients again and make some further study on the patients without secondary infections but healed slowly and provide some information of antibiotics' real effects. Without those further supports, this argument is incredible and not well reasoned.

jupiterjoyUID: 161688

我改了几处, 不知恰当否:)
肯定有点用的.
我也是新手, 没发很好的回答你的问题. 不过, 虽然不提倡restate, 却也没多大害处.

moqi0UID: 2158626

In this argument, the arguer claims that all muscle-strained patients would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Then he provides an incredibles study including some vague statistics to support his conclusion. As discussed below, this argument suffers from several logic flaws and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands. Hence, we can not concede that antibiotics should be recommended to all patients with muscle strains. (最后一句好像有点多余，是不是在前面把作者的论据说得详细一些，特别是作为前提的假设。)

First of all, the study could not provide strong support to the conclusion since it uses a comparison between two groups without the same study environments. The first group is treated by a doctor specializing in sports medicine while the second group is treated by a general doctor. Hence, it is possible that the first group recuperating more quickly than the other one is not because they take antibiotics but because they have a more special doctor.（最后一句的not because…but because的表达不是很舒服，不过一时想不出怎么改）

Besides, there is no information about the members in the two groups. Whether the patients in the two groups are in the same state（status是地位身份）before they begin the treatment?（语法好像有问题） Do the second group's patients hurt much harder? Or do the first groups' patients have some other effective medicines since they have a special doctor in sports medicine?（既然还是医生问题是不是放到上段较好？） And whether the patients in those two groups have the same age and the same professions?（又是whether） If the patients in group one are all young athletes and the patients in group two are all old office persons, the study's result is absolutely meaningless. In this case, the study does not lend any creditable support to this argument.

In addition, even if antibiotics can keep the muscle-strain patients from secondary infections, there is no evidence to show that antibiotics can make the patients recuperate more quickly. In fact, it is absolutely possible that not every patient has the risk to get the secondary infections. For those patients are uneasy to infect, are antibiotics effective the same as those patients easy to get secondary infections? In this argument, we cannot find any relative information. Without that information, we can not accept the arguer's recommendation.

Finally, even if the antibiotics are effective for speeding up the recuperation of muscle-strain patients, whether should it be advised to take as a part of the treatment for all patients? The arguer fails to take into account and rule(s) out such facts that some patients perhaps can not take any antibiotics because of their other disasters, such as gastritis and enteritis.

All in all, the arguer makes an arbitrary conclusion based on an unbelievable study by err. To bolster the argument, he should do a well-controlled study about the patients again and make some further studies(这里的some应该不是某个的意思吧) on the patients without secondary infections but healed slowly and provide some information of antibiotics' real effects. Without those further supports, this argument is incredible and not well reasoned.

觉得没有抓住最主要的错误攻击，尤其是关于antibiotics的疗效，这点算是细枝末节吧。主要段落的organization逻辑不够清楚，例证不够有力。还有就是语句尚需多琢磨，似乎一些表达偏中国式。另外，我觉得模板化的问题不是很大,argument本来就是有套路的一种文体，最主要的还是看你逻辑问题分析的是否到位。不过新东方的一些万灵的套话，特别是比较长的那种，最好不要用。（纯属个人意见）
说了这么多，好像都挺笼统的，其实这些问题我也都有，看了那篇argument该怎么写的牛贴后才有豁然开朗的感觉，打算重新写一篇。一起加油吧！

白衣笨天使UID: 144754

多谢多谢啊！
我马上回去再修改一下！^_^

MS都是新手，同奋！

wenyuZUID: 2113611

已经把你的文章拷下来了哦！
因为你恰在我的楼上，所以我打算最先改你的哈，明天给你贴上来#
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


WORDS: 470          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-3-4

In this argument, the arguer claims that all muscle-strained patients would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Then he provides an incredible study which includes some vague statistics to support his conclusion. As discussed below, this argument suffers from several logic flaws and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands. Hence, we can not concede that antibiotics should be recommended to all patients with muscle strain.[这样写是不是就算是restate了啦？不是很提倡这样哦，虽然我也没练出来一个比较好的开头]

First of all, the study could not provide strong support to the conclusion since it uses a comparison between two groups without the same study environments[复数？？]. The first group is[这里group用的是集体概念，用复数比较好点。] treated by a doctor specializing in sports medicine while the second group is [同上]treated by a general doctor. Hence, it is possible that the first group recuperate more quickly than the other group is not because they take antibiotics but because they have more special doctor[我觉得你能把special展开来说就好啦，哪些地方很特别呢，比如照顾方面、医生的经验方面，这样稍微提下会使文章丰富起来哦].

Besides, there is no information about the members in the two groups. Whether are the patients in the two groups in the same status before they begin the treatment? Do the second group's patients hurt much harder? Or do the first groups' patients have some other effective medicines since they have a special doctor in sports medicine? And whether the patients in those two groups have the same age and the same professions?[还是问句的话，为什么不是疑问句式呢？] If the patients in group one are all young athletes and the patients in group two are all old office persons, the study's result is absolutely meaningless. In this case, the study does not lend any creditable support to this argument.

In addition, even if antibiotics can keep the muscle-strain patients from secondary infections, there is no evidence to show[也许本来证据还是有的吧，只是作者在联系时忽视了。所以批驳这点时，不应该说证据没有，应该说作者没有考虑就妄加推断了] that antibiotics can make the patients recuperate more quickly. In fact, it is absolutely possible[好象是对矛盾的词用在一起了？] that not every patient has the risk to get the secondary infections. For those patients uneasy to infect, are antibiotics effective the same as those patients easy to get secondary infections? In this argument, we cannot find any relative information. Without that information, we can not accept the arguer's recommendation[最后两句连成从句吧，without which……，要有尽量写长句的意识哦].

Finally, even if the antibiotics are effective for speeding up the recuperation of muscle-strain patients, whether should it be advised to take as a part of the treatment for all patients? The arguer fails to take into account and rules out such facts that some patients perhaps can not take any antibiotics because of their other disasters, such as gastritis and enteritis[这两个生病的名词写得好，只是有个潜在的风险，能确认这两种病是排斥抗生素的吗？].

All in all, the arguer makes a[an ?] arbitrary conclusion based on a[an?] unbelievable study by err. To bolster the argument, he should do a well-controlled study about the patients again and make some further study on the patients without secondary infections but healed[healing?] slowly and provide some information of antibiotics' real effects. Without those further supports, this argument is incredible and not well reasoned.[总结得似乎不错哈，只是感觉很平的调子，有模版的感觉，僵硬。。]

Some questions：
1．        我这个开头算不算restate the argument？我很担心我的开头是太明显的套模版复述原文，可是又觉得很难在那么短的时间里组织一个好的开头。
[有点象是在RESTATE了哈。我觉得既然能按着模版操练，也就能自己想个自己的思路，按着这思路操练的。不要太担心哈，再多写点应该能有种比较好的开篇的]
2．        3，4段用了问句，不知道这样用算不算涵义清楚地设问？
[可以哈，我觉得，就是要问绰绰逼人的问句把漏洞列出来]

[说说我的整体感觉，感觉文章驳斥方面没多大问题，大方向是抓到了的。但在细节的论述上似乎还嫌那么点不够，说理的时候也不是那么丰厚而有力。感觉句式变化不是很好，长句没足够多的用起来。所以文采方面似乎有点欠缺哦。加油加油。我其实也只是会说点大话，自己写出来的文章也不知是什么样子，有空也记得帮我改该哦]

[ 本帖最后由 wenyuZ 于 2006-3-6 07:26 编辑 ]