Argument51 请指教！留链接互改！（修改版）

chengnicoleUID: 2216897

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: 324(350)          TIME: 0:30:00(revised)          DATE: 2006-7-8

The arguer tends to convince us that the antibiotics that could prevent secondary infections should be part of the treatment to patients of severe muscle strain. Though the theory seems reasonable, the arguer fails to present it in a convincing way.

In the first place, no evidence demonstrated that the patients were suffered by secondary infections keeping them from healing quicker. As we all know, the antibiotics should be prescribed to patient to cure the infections. However, there is no inevitability has been validated that muscle injury will cause the secondary infections. We even cannot be sure that if the infections happened on all the patients indeed.

In the second place, the arguer's assertion rests on one unconvincing study of two patient groups. Without adequate information on patients’ demographic profiles, we cannot rule out other possible factors might impede the patients in group two to recuperation during a shorter time. Furthermore, the study itself appears problematic. The fundamental fallacy of the study is the contrasting two groups are not scientifically designed to reach credible results. The two groups were treated by different doctors with different specialty, which might greatly influence the accuracy of the results. Since no additional information about the entire treatment has been indicated in the argument, there is high possibility that in fact it is another sports medicine, or the level of doctors’ skills, not the antibiotics, that performed more effective toward the muscle injuries than the physical treatment. At the same time, the involvement of sugar pills confused the purpose of the study. The learning from the second group can only prove that the psychological suggestion seems not effective in muscle injury cases.

In sum, to further develop the argument, the arguer should convince us that the vital obstacle preventing the muscle-injured patients from recovery is the secondary infection. More studies under equal conditions should be conducted in scientific methods are requested to verify the effectiveness of antibiotics in curing severe muscle strains. To complete the study, thorough diagnosis on the patient and possible side effects or allergies of antibiotics should be considered before giving therapeutic advices.

[ 本帖最后由 chengnicole 于 2006-7-8 19:01 编辑 ]

chengnicoleUID: 2216897

修改了一下，看看是不是好一点？

ddloveyyUID: 2225606

The arguer tends to convince us that the antibiotics that (that太多了)could prevent secondary infections should be part of the treatment to patients of (with)severe muscle strain. ( 从句套从句，较难理解 )Though the theory seems reasonable, the arguer fails to present it in a convincing way.

In the first place, no evidence demonstrated （传说应该用现在时）that the patients were suffered by (from) secondary infections keeping them from healing quicker. (建议分成两句写，argu is based on...however... ) As we all know, the antibiotics should be prescribed to patient to cure the（去掉） infections. However,(这个难道转As we all know的折？) there is no inevitability has been validated that muscle injury will cause the secondary infections. We even cannot be sure that if the infections happened on all the patients indeed．(此段不清楚在批什么的说)

In the second place, the arguer's assertion rests on one unconvincing study of two patient groups. （这２句有很大跳跃）Without adequate information on patients’ demographic profiles (高深的词汇，人口质量？不懂), ，we cannot rule out other possible factors (what other factors, enumerate) might impede the patients in group two to recuperation during a shorter time. Furthermore, the study itself appears problematic. The fundamental fallacy of the study is the contrasting two groups are not scientifically designed （不知到底分组没）to reach credible results. The two groups were treated by different doctors with different specialty (in different ways简单明了), which might greatly influence the accuracy (个人认为本实验无数据没有准确性，用可信度较好) of the results. Since no additional information about the entire treatment has been indicated in the argument, there is high possibility that in fact it is another sports medicine (哪里来的东东，要说最好前面有铺垫), or the level of doctors’ skills, not the antibiotics, that performed more effectively toward the muscle injuries than the physical treatment. At the same time, the involvement of sugar pills confused the purpose of the study. The learning from the second group can only prove that the psychological suggestion (最好前面有铺垫) seems not effective in muscle injury cases.

In sum, to further develop the argument, the arguer should convince us that the vital obstacle preventing the muscle-injured patients from recovery is the secondary infection. More studies under equal (take antibiotics or not不可能equal)conditions should be conducted in scientific methods are requested to verify the effectiveness of antibiotics in curing severe muscle strains. To complete the study, thorough diagnosis on the patient and possible side effects or allergies of antibiotics should be considered before giving therapeutic advices.(据说ETS不太注重结尾，冗长的建议慎用)

总体讲，结构不太清楚，不知道批了几点错误，最好一段批一点，（second place 的furthermore就应该分出来，前后都可以说清楚）.每段的TS不够明确，而且论证跳跃性很大，句句间逻辑联系不太紧密．语言方面从句使用过于复杂，maybe ETS应该深谙此道．
一家之言而已，呵呵．偶是新手，昨天刚写这篇，狂拍啊，表留情．
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=490193&highlight=%2Bddloveyy

[ 本帖最后由 ddloveyy 于 2006-7-8 21:32 编辑 ]