Argument51 同主题练习谢谢您拍！有拍就回// 求互改

jackloveUID: 183611

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."

==============================================
The arguer claims that all patients would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment when they are diagnosed with muscle strain. To support the argument, the arguer provides evidence that doctors approved that secondary infection may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain through the compared experiment of patients. Clearly, this argument is logically flawed in several critique respects.

First of all, the arguer fails to provide any information concerning about patients in experiment. It is equally possible that patients have severe muscle strain in the second time but not in the first time. Moreover, as we knew, recovery of illness depends on many factors, such as genetic factors, living habits, and mild exercise, all of which are ignored by the arguer. Lack such information, it is entirely possible that patients in the first group are all young people but older one in the second group. Or perhaps patients in the first group have good living habits and eat some health food every day rather than fast food in the second group. Besides, the arguer does not provide the exact number of patients so that we do not judge whether the sample can represent the overall patients who have severe muscle strain. Before providing such information, the arguer cannot convince me that the study is reliable.

Additionally, even if the arguer provides information about patients in two groups, it does not follow that the results of study are reliable because the arguer overlooks other factors that influence or accelerate the speed of recovery of patients. For example, patients in the first group might have other subsidiary treatments other than took antibiotic regularly. Lack such information, the arguer fails to conclude that antibiotic could make patients recover quickly.

Finally, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the recovery of patients who suffer severe muscle strain in first infection has been improved as a result of taking the antibiotic, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics as well as patients in experiments. It is clear that the arguer omits the precondition of patients in experiments in that the experiments proved that secondary infection may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. It is entirely that antibiotic is valid only for severe muscle strain but not other muscle strain. Unless experiments have been done in all patients who diagnosed with muscle strain, there is no guarantee that it will inevitably valid for all patients. Actually, the arguer’s recommendation of treatment for all patients would most probably turn out to be ineffective and misleading.  

To sum up, the argument is not well-supported. To solidify the argument, the arguer should provide information about patients in experiments and whether patients took other subsidiary treatments. To better assess the argument, the arguer would need information about whether all patients are suit to antibiotic treatment other than patients who have severe muscle strain.

[ 本帖最后由 jacklove 于 2006-3-6 14:20 编辑 ]

pluckfUID: 2172756

The arguer claims that all patients would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment when they are diagnosed with muscle strain. To support the argument, the arguer provides evidence that doctors approved that secondary infection may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain through the compared experiment of patients. Clearly, this argument is logically flawed in several critique respects.

First of all, the arguer fails to provide any information concerning about patients in experiment. It is equally possible that patients have severe muscle strain in the second time but not in the first time.[equally possible....but...?不知道第一次受伤与第二次受伤怎么证明病人差异？ 题目说是一次受伤的二次感染，即使你说的是二次受伤通常要比一次受伤严重吧，不明白你的意思】 Moreover, as we knew, recovery of illness depends on many factors, such as genetic factors, living habits, and mild exercise, all of which are ignored by the arguer. Lack such information, it is entirely possible that patients in the first group are all young people but older one in the second group. Or perhaps patients in the first group have good living habits and eat some health food every day rather than fast food in the second group. Besides, the arguer does not provide the exact number of patients so that we do not judge whether the sample can represent the overall patients who have severe muscle strain. Before providing such information, the arguer cannot convince me that the study is reliable.

Additionally, even if the arguer provides information about patients in two groups,【这里和第一段话TS没什么区别呀,最好有个明显的标准来分段】 it does not follow that the results of study are reliable because the arguer overlooks other factors that influence or accelerate the speed of recovery of patients. For example, patients in the first group might have other subsidiary treatments other than took antibiotic regularly. Lack such information, the arguer fails to conclude that antibiotic could make patients recover quickly.

Finally, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the recovery of patients who suffer severe muscle strain in first infection has been improved as a result of taking the antibiotic, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics as well as patients in experiments.【这个是关于建议的问题，感觉＆文章要批驳的论点有些远了，即使是试验中的人没全用抗生素，这也是次要的问题，不应当摆在这里， 也没有太大的必要反驳吧？】 It is clear that the arguer omits the precondition of patients in experiments in that the experiments proved that secondary infection may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. It is entirely [possible]that antibiotic is valid only for severe muscle strain but not other muscle strain.[antibiotiv is valid for cure secondary infections,you have assued that severre muscke strain are liable to suffer secondary infections.可能不管伤得重不重， 二次感染的机会是一样的】 Unless experiments have been done in all patients who diagnosed with muscle strain, there is no guarantee that it will inevitably valid for all patients.【题目理解和你有些偏差， 感觉试验对象就是所有程度的病人，而不是严重伤害的病人】 Actually, the arguer’s recommendation of treatment for all patients would most probably turn out to be ineffective and misleading.  【这一段批驳的感觉不是逻辑性很强的，没明太白你的意思】

To sum up, the argument is not well-supported. To solidify the argument, the arguer should provide information about patients in experiments and whether patients took other subsidiary treatments. To better assess the argument, the arguer would need information about whether all patients are suit to antibiotic treatment other than patients who have severe muscle strain.

总之： 感觉批驳的逻辑性不是很强，语言还不错

[ 本帖最后由 pluckf 于 2006-3-6 15:51 编辑 ]

WeOnUID: 2110447

The arguer claims that all patients would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment when they are diagnosed with muscle strain. To support the argument, the arguer provides evidence that doctors approved that secondary infection may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain through the compared experiment of patients. Clearly, this argument is logically flawed in several critique critical respects.

First of all, the arguer fails to provide any information concerning about 去掉一个patients in experiment. It is equally possible that patients have severe muscle strain in the second time but not in the first time. Moreover, as we knew know, recovery of illness depends on many factors, such as genetic factors, living habits, and mild exercise, all of which are ignored by the arguer. Lacking such information, it is entirely possible that patients in the first group are all young people but older one in the second group.感觉有些问题 Or perhaps patients in the first group have good living habits and eat some health food every day rather than fast food in the second group. Besides, the arguer does not provide the exact number of patients so that we do not judge whether the sample can represent the overall patients who have severe muscle strain. Before providing such information, the arguer cannot convince me that the study is reliable.

Additionally, even if the arguer provides information about patients in two groups, it does not follow that the results of study are reliable because the arguer overlooks other factors that influence or accelerate the speed of recovery of patients. For example, patients in the first group might have other subsidiary treatments other than took antibiotic regularly. Lacking such information, the arguer fails to conclude that antibiotic could make patients recover quickly.

Finally, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the recovery of patients who suffer severe muscle strain in first infection has been improved as a result of taking the antibiotic, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics as well as patients in experiments. It is clear that the arguer omits the precondition of patients in experiments in that the experiments proved that secondary infection may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. (proubed that ... may... 时态又问题吧)It is entirely possible that antibiotic is valid only for severe muscle strain but not other muscle strain. Unless experiments have been done in all patients who diagnosed with muscle strain, there is no guarantee that it will be inevitably valid for all patients. Actually, the arguer’s recommendation of treatment for all patients would most probably turn out to be ineffective and misleading.  

To sum up, the argument is not well-supported. To solidify the argument, the arguer should provide information about patients in experiments and whether patients took other subsidiary treatments. To better assess the argument, the arguer would need information about whether all patients are suit to antibiotic treatment other than patients who have severe muscle strain.

搂住写这篇勇了多久啊？ 我现在都写不了这么多呢？
btw: 记得以前在toefl也经常碰到的

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

[ 本帖最后由 WeOn 于 2006-3-6 16:13 编辑 ]