argument51 {长征队}扔掉了模版！欢迎大家猛拍~~

smailingfishUID: 2246243

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,多少人？年龄？性别？受伤状况？两组的人在这些方面是否相似或相同呢？ all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics抗生素 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, 两个医生的专业不同时否会影响到结果呢？最好由同一个医生were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics.病人的心理因素也会影响结果 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。


前提不成立：前提是二次感染一定会成立，但论者未给出任何证据证明二次感染一定会发生在肌肉拉伤的病人身上，或者在他们身上发生的概率很大之类的
论据：没有说服力。
     1..两组病人具有可比性吗？他们的年龄 性别 身体状况 受伤状况以及其它的生理心理状况是否相同？没说 如果服用抗生素的一组的比较年轻受伤也不严重，而另外一组恰好相反呢？
2. 两位医生的经验和水平也会影响 一般一般来说运动医生会比普通医生更了解肌肉的问题，所以由他治疗的病人康复快，就不能排除是因为他的水平高或是治疗有针对性造成，这样也不能说明是抗生素使得病人康复快。
3. 第三，不服抗生素的一组食用了糖片，而论者没有给出资料证明这种糖片不会影响病人的康复。所以对这两组病人的研究并不能说明抗生素能使病人康复快。
论断太武断。
论者由二次感染会防碍病人快速康复而认为要建议病人服用抗生素。但是抗生素除了会杀菌防止感染外，还可能会带来其他问题，比如副作用，也可能有的病人会对抗生素过敏allergy。对于这些情况论者没有考虑进来
结论：为加强说服力，论者还应该进一步提供有关肌肉拉伤的病人中二次感染的概率有多少，并提供一份科学的研究，证明在相同医生、相同病征、相同病人生理条件以及其他治疗手段、环境相同的情况下，抗生素是能使病人早日康复。


While the conclusion drawn, by means of a comparison of two groups of patients who suffer from muscle strain, seems reasonable, one would also wish to consider other issues before making the conclusion which is on the basis of two treatments that are highly suspected.

First, the premise fails to support the conclusion, which gives an invalid and unsound result. Before analyzing these two treatments, the arguer simply assume that secondary infections are sure to happen, or that it is very possible to happen to these patients. But she or he doesn’t offer any evidence to support the premise which leads to an incorrect conclusion being drawn. Further more, are there anything that can guarantee the comparison between these two groups of patients? How old are they? How many males and females? How about their physical conditions? Or, how seriously are they injured? The arguer fails to provide any information about these which are very important for drawing the conclusion soundly and correctly. What if the first group consists of young men with strong bodies while the second group happens to have old people who are so old that even a small cold can catch them? Surly there will still have the same result, but whether it is because of the antibiotics, just as what the arguer says, or merely more healthy bodies that result in their recovery is remain in high suspicious. Again, the two doctors, by reasons of one is specialized in sports medicine while the other is a general physician, are very different from one another which plays a rather important role in this argument. Generally speaking, a doctor who is specialized in sport medicine tends to have a better knowledge about muscle strain than a general physician can have. It is a justifiably expectation that the first doctor, maybe by means of special care which does significant contribution to the recovery, knows how to treat these patient better while the second one can just give the patients general treatment. These considerable differences are never analyzed by the arguer, and thus weaken the credibility of the conclusion. In addition, although the patients in second group who were given sugar pills instead of antibiotics recovered within the same time as that of the patients in the first group, the arguer fails to tell us whether sugar could have any effect on the result. What if the sugar contributes to the recovery of the patients?  Perhaps one cannot draw the conclusion safely once sugar is ont taken into consideration.

What's more, the suggestion of taking antibiotics is drawn too hasty merely on the fact that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly. Perhaps aside from helping patients, antibiotics will cause some bad effects, such as serious side effects, or some patients will suffer allergy to antibiotics.  Without ruling out such possibilities the suggestion can never be sound or significant.

To provide a sufficient conclusion, the arguer have to offer the possibility of secondary infection among such patients, and cite a scientific research to prove that under the same treatment, the patients, who are suffering from the same injure, after taking antibiotics will recover sooner than those who don't. Only when all of these issues discussed above are taken into consideration, can the arguer provides a sound and accepted conclusion.

扔掉了模版，感觉没那么多束缚了 呵呵挺舒服的   当然基本的骨架还是要的

谢谢大家猛拍哦  有什么好的建议尽管说哦

[ 本帖最后由 smailingfish 于 2006-12-13 11:31 编辑 ]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

论证糖片有影响这个攻击点不合理, 糖片作为比较实验的常用安慰剂在研究领域是被默认为不存在特殊效果的

smailingfishUID: 2246243

谢谢
竟然糖片竟然是默认的， 我还真不知道嘞

lilyquUID: 2214568

While the conclusion drawn, by means of a comparison of two groups of patients who suffer from muscle strain, seems reasonable, one would also wish to consider other issues before making the conclusion which is on the basis of two treatments that are highly suspected[这句表达的不是很清楚，that指代的是什么].

First, the premise fails to support the conclusion, which gives an invalid and unsound result. Before analyzing these two treatments, the arguer simply assume that secondary infections are sure to happen, or that it is very possible to happen to these patients. But she or he doesn’t offer any evidence to support the premise which leads to an incorrect conclusion being drawn. Further more, are there anything that can guarantee [ the validity of]the comparison between these two groups of patients? How old are they? How many males and females? How about their physical conditions? Or, how seriously are they injured? The arguer fails to provide any information about these[好似有点多余] which are very important for drawing the conclusion soundly and correctly. What if the first group consists of young men with strong bodies while the second group happens to have old people who are so old that even a small cold can catch them?[这句好像很不顺，看看这样写行吗what will happen if the first group consist of young men with strong bodies while the second group patients is so old that even a light cold can catch them]  Surly there will still have the same result, but whether it is because of the antibiotics, just as what the arguer says, or merely more healthy bodies that result in their recovery[,it] is remain in high suspicious. Again, the two doctors, by reasons of one is specialized in sports medicine while the other is a general physician, are very different from one another which plays a rather important role in this argument. Generally speaking, a doctor who is specialized in sport medicine tends to have a better knowledge about muscle strain than a general physician can have. It is a justifiably expectation that the first doctor, maybe by means of special care which does significant contribution to the recovery, knows how to treat these patient better while[than] the second one can just[who] give the patients general treatment. These considerable differences are never analyzed by the arguer, and thus weaken the credibility of the conclusion. In addition, although the patients in second group who were given sugar pills instead of antibiotics recovered within the same time as that of the patients in the first group, the arguer fails to tell us whether sugar could have any effect on the result. What if the sugar contributes to the recovery of the patients?  Perhaps one cannot draw the conclusion safely once sugar is ont taken into consideration.

What's more, the suggestion of taking antibiotics is drawn too hasty merely on the fact that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly. Perhaps aside from helping patients, antibiotics will cause some bad effects, such as serious side effects, or some patients will suffer allergy to antibiotics.  Without ruling out such possibilities the suggestion can never be sound or significant.

To provide a sufficient conclusion, the arguer have to offer the possibility of secondary infection among such patients, and cite a scientific research to prove that under the same treatment, the patients, who are suffering from the same injure, after taking antibiotics will recover sooner than those who don't. Only when all of these issues discussed above are taken into consideration, can the arguer provides a sound and accepted conclusion.

扔掉了模版，感觉没那么多束缚了 呵呵挺舒服的   当然基本的骨架还是要的

谢谢大家猛拍哦  有什么好的建议尽管说哦



写的很不错，思路很清晰，结构也很合理
我也认为糖丸的影响没有必要，还有一些句子表达好像不是很顺畅，再接再厉
有时间帮我看看，我在28楼

smailingfishUID: 2246243

谢谢~~ 辛苦啦
what if 那一句中，what if 是固定用法，意思是：“如果  怎么样”  而且我也在别的书上见过类似的用法，应该没问题的。

呵呵，一起加油哦~~