argument51 越洋农场作业队geniego

geniegoUID: 201395

51The 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."
医生长期以来怀疑严重肌肉扭伤后的二次感染妨碍了一些患者迅速康复。这一假说现在被一项对两组患者的研究的初步结果所证实。第一组患者全部由专攻运动医学的Dr. Newland治疗肌肉损伤，他们在疗程中经常服用抗生素。他们的康复期平均比通常预期的快40％。第二组患者由综合医师Dr. Alton治疗，他们被给予糖丸，而患者相信他们在服用抗生素。他们的平均康复时间没有明显缩短。因此，任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗。

1、在这个研究之中，并没有能够建立明确的因果关系来支持前提，前提指出二次感染将会妨碍一些患者的迅速康复，但是该实验并未涉及二次感染的问题。（我们只知道了好的快，但是并不知道有没有复发，也就是二次感染）
2、这个研究广泛性，首先样本的数量，样本的素质不同（损伤的严重程度，男女比例，损伤部位）医师不同（一个专攻医师和一个general医师，一个当然会全方位的考虑，因此周到的照顾当然会有帮助，心理作用）
3．质疑这个实验的时间长短，抗生素有没有后遗症？
4．用词，前提说二次感染会使部分病人恢复的慢，但是没有明确，结论就推广到了所有人


Before prescribing these antibiotics, some details should be taken into account and examined from the whole. The author asserts that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should be well advised to take antibiotics, through the result that antibiotics taking group recovered quicker than the other sugar pill taking group. However, the facts can not set the assumed causation to support the premise even to get the conclusion.

First of all, there is a lack of evidences to prove the premise. In this study, there is no proof has mentioned secondary infection, we know nothing from the statement about which patient is recovered directly and which patient is recovered from secondary infection. Although, the antibiotics taking group is quicker, that does not mean the patients are all covered directly, the slower group are cover after secondary infection. We could not assert, just according to evidences provided in this argument, the direct relationship between recuperation time and times of infection. Maybe in fact, the both group are all recovered from the first time.

Further, we all know when doing research it is necessary that to keep different groups under same situation. So I doubt the correction and generalization of this study. Because the author failed to provide the number of the group members. The sampler should be large enough, from statistic perspectives, to be representative, or perhaps the result go converse with actual situation. We also query the condition of these two groups, maybe the first group were milder injured. And sex ratio, because it is common sense that metabolism in male is faster and organization updates quicker. In addition, there is still difference of different injured parts, perhaps the first group was only hurt legs or arms while the other group was hurt their necks, or shoulders. What is more, Dr. Newland specialized in sports medicine must be much more professional and experienced than Dr. Alton, a general physician. And there is no doubt that Dr. Newland will provide more comprehensive and thoughtful services and it would be a quite beneficial point for his patients’ recuperation. For example, Dr. Newland would, because his major, know clearly how to exert auxiliary diet to help recovering and maybe know some thing relevant about physical treatment. Finally, there is another element should be examined, because the patients know who is specialized in sports medicine and who is just a general physician, this must have some effects as psychological elements.

Even though we concede the antibiotics really effects, can we apply the medicine without a long research to examine the side effects. It would be quite reckless to advice as the author stated without trying all different people, for example, pregnant woman. That might be very dangerous if this antibiotic lead to some diseases to the baby and mother.

Finally, some terminology faults in the argument. In the premise, the arguer stated secondary infections might keep some patients from healing quickly. Some patents must be a specific definition. However, in the conclusion, this concept was expanded to all patients. That is quite illogical to say some patients, because it is not a clear definition of which part of patients.

All in all, without enough evidence the argument was quite doubtable, for every research should be prescribed strictly about every condition. Moreover, it is also crucial to consider feasibility of every study before practising, after all it is just a academic experiment

monkeycolaUID: 2206472

Before prescribing these antibiotics, some details should be taken into account and examined from the whole. The author asserts that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should be well advised to take antibiotics, through the result that antibiotics taking group recovered quicker than the other sugar pill taking group. However, the facts can not set the assumed causation to support the premise even to get the conclusion.
这个开头段我很是没有怎么见过，写的有点不清楚。
First of all, （the arguer provides no evidence ，你写的也可以，这个常用）there is a lack of evidences to prove the premise. In this study, there is no proof(information) has mentioned secondary infection, we know nothing from the statement about which patient is recovered directly and which patient is recovered from secondary infection. (文章写了，第一组人有muscle strain)Although, the antibiotics taking group is quicker, that does not mean the patients are all covered directly, the slower group are cover after secondary infection. We could not assert, just according to evidences provided in this argument, the direct relationship between recuperation time and times of infection. Maybe in fact, the both group are all recovered from the first time.
这段看的有的让我摸不着头脑，没有看懂你驳斥什么，我认为文章的前提是二次感染一定会发生，并且一定会发生在肌肉拉伤的病人上。
Further, we all know that when doing research it is necessary that(去掉) to keep different groups under same situation. So I doubt the correction and generalization of this study（the result of this study is not statistical reriable and open to doubt）. Because the author failed to provide the number of the group members. The sampler should be large enough, from statistic perspectives, to be representative, or perhaps the result go converse with actual situation. We also query the condition of these two groups, maybe the first group were milder injured. And sex ratio, because it is common sense that metabolism in male is faster and organization updates quicker. In addition, there is still difference of different injured parts, perhaps the first group was only hurt legs or arms while the other group was hurt their necks, or shoulders. What is more, Dr. Newland specialized in sports medicine must be much more professional and experienced than Dr. Alton, a general physician. And there is no doubt that Dr. Newland will provide more comprehensive and thoughtful services and it would be a quite beneficial point for his patients’ recuperation. For example, Dr. Newland would, because his major, know clearly how to exert auxiliary diet to help recovering and maybe know some thing relevant about physical treatment. Finally, there is another element should be examined, because the patients know who is specialized in sports medicine and who is just a general physician, this must have some effects as psychological elements.（好）这段写的精彩，不过建议把医生的对比分为一段。

Even though we concede the antibiotics really effects, can we apply the medicine without a long research to examine the side-effect. It would be quite reckless to advice as the author stated without trying all different people, for example, pregnant woman. That might be very dangerous if this antibiotic lead to some diseases to the baby and mother.

Finally, some terminology faults in the argument. In the premise, the arguer stated secondary infections might keep some patients from healing quickly. Some patents must be a specific definition. However, in the conclusion, this concept was expanded to all patients. That is quite illogical to say some patients, because it is not a clear definition of which part of patients.
这段有点小毛病，中英语的味道。

All in all, without enough evidence the argument was quite doubtable, for every research should be prescribed strictly about every condition. Moreover, it is also crucial to consider feasibility of every study before practising, after all it is just a academic experiment
结尾有点匆忙，没有力度。
总评：
这篇a写的不错，语言流畅，说理清晰。但是对个别观点驳斥没有到位，分析不清楚。
继续努力，A可以拿个理想的分数。
加油！