argument51 同主题 抗生素。请多拍！

小室黄瓜UID：2155213

1 study的结果存在疑问a两粗对照的条件不同。医生也许必要的影响大。b这是一个初步结果
2 即使study的结果可信，也不能支持那个假说。Study没有关于二次感染这个问题的argue
3 结果认为应建议患者服用抗生素辅助治疗没有武断并证据不足。
TOPIC：ARGUMENT 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."
WORDS：458          TIME：0:45:00          DATE：2006-3-7

In this argument, the arguer  puts out a study on two groups of people who recieve different treatment about antibiotics to demonstrate the hypothesis and make a conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would better take antibiotics as part of their treatment. It seems reasonable at first glance, however, for further thinking, it suffers from several crucial faults and the process of analysis is not cogent.

To begin with, the study that use to testify the hypothesis is questionarable for some facets. Firstly, the patients of the two groups may not have the same condition of health and state of body. If we can not know the detailed information of the conditon of these patients, their reasults of the treatment may not be convincing because different  conditions have different reflection to the antibiotics and ways of treatment. Secondly, if we want to find out the effect of antibiotics we should design a study with the same condition and the only difference is whether taking antibiotics or not, and the result of the study may convincing in that it directly reflect the effect of antibiotics other than other kind of influence. As to the two groups, the patients are treated with different doctors who are even specialized in deverse field. We can soundly assume that the treatment of the two  doctors contribute to the patients' delay of recuperation. Therefore, the study is not reasonable not along to sustain the hypothesis.

Even if the study is believable, we can not regard it as the bases of the hypothesis. The hypothesis maintains that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly, yet the secondary infections is not included and even mentioned in the study. So, this hypothesis is groudless. Even though  the  secondary infections has relation with antibiotics which can prevent  infections, there is not any analysis about it.

Finally, the argue make the conclusion and suggestion that all the patients should be advised to take antibiotics as a part of the treatment, which is not cogent and rather hasty. The most serious fault is that all the patient who have been diagnosed to have muscle disease should take antibiotics. Nearly every medicine has the accordingly quantity of people who are not fit to take because of side effect and allergy. One point can not cover the whole. What they really should do is to concern with their own state, and then to choose whether to take this kind of medicin or not.

In sum, the arguer’s hypothesis is groundless and the conclusion is not cogent. If we want to support the hypothesis we should design a new, scientific study and get more and detailed information of both the people’s condition and the effects of antibiotics.

jackloveUID：183611

想改改呢
但发现确实不错
很好！

第二段在加些，有点单薄了

小桶UID：2183657

In this argument, the arguer puts out a study on two groups of people who recieve  different treatment about antibiotics to demonstrate the hypothesis and make a conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would better take antibiotics as part of their treatment. It seems reasonable at first glance, however, for further thinking, it suffers from several crucial faults and the process of analysis is not cogent.

To begin with, the study that use to testify the hypothesis is questionarable for some facets. Firstly, the patients of the two groups may not have the same condition of health and state of body. If we can not know the detailed information of the conditon of these patients, their reasults of the treatment may not be convincing because different conditions have different reflection to the antibiotics and ways of treatment. Secondly, if we want to find out the effect of antibiotics we should design a study with the same condition and the only difference is whether[将is whether换成-,平行结构] taking antibiotics or not, and[then，明确后面的study的指代] the result of the study may [be] convincing in that it directly reflect the effect of antibiotics other than other kind of influence. As to the two groups, the patients are treated with different doctors who are even specialized in deverse field [diverse fields]. We can soundly assume that the treatment of the two doctors contribute to the patients' delay of recuperation.[这一句和上一句因果关系不强] Therefore, the study is not reasonable not along to [not along to用法我不知道，惭愧]sustain the hypothesis.

Even if the study is believable, we can not regard it as the bases of the hypothesis. The hypothesis maintains that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly, yet the secondary infections is [are] not included and even mentioned in the study. So, this hypothesis is groudless. Even though the secondary infections has[have] relation with antibiotics which can prevent infections, there is not any analysis about it.[them]

Finally, the argue[argument] make the conclusion and suggestion that all the patients should be advised to take antibiotics as a part of the treatment, which is not cogent and rather hasty. [整句都可去掉，将下一句稍作修改作段落衔接会显得精练，符合你全文的逻辑风格]The most serious fault is that all the patient who have been diagnosed to have muscle disease should take antibiotics. Nearly every medicine has the accordingly quantity of people who are not fit to take [少宾语]because of side effect and allergy. One point can not cover the whole. What they really should do is to concern with their own state, and then to choose whether to take this kind of medicin or not.

In sum, the arguer’s hypothesis is groundless and the conclusion is not cogent. If we want to support the hypothesis we should design a new, scientific study and get more and detailed information of both the people’s condition and the effects of antibiotics.


水平有限，修改的不多，但还是咬牙坚持的改了一点，改错了多包涵，
比我写的好多了，给了我不少启示
拼写和单复数错误比较多，希望楼主以后能注意

http://edu.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... 3D103#pid1768277163

[ 本帖最后由 小桶 于 2006-3-14 22:11 编辑 ]