argument51 [0710G ＋U Aug小组] gungun

SatanicUID: 2362211

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: 349          TIME: 00:27:51          DATE: 2007-8-19 12:21:44

In this analysis, the arguer attempts to convince us that all patients who suffer muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics which seemly have positive effects on their treatment. To substantiate this conclusion, the author cites a study of two groups of patients and makes a result that the recuperation time was somewhat quicker. While this argument has some merits, several conspicuous flaws seriously undermine the line of reasoning.

First of all, the results of the study are basically preliminary which indicate that the outcome is somewhat groundless and unconvincing. Perhaps the healing velocity of patients is fast at first and gradually slows down because of the declining effect of antibiotics medicine or the [resistant] effect of body to the antibiotics medicine. Without get the ultimate result of this experiment, author can not draw this [consumptious] conclusion that antibiotics medicine has positive effect in the treatment of muscle strain.

Even assuming that the result is acceptable, there are some [suspective] points lying within the course of the experiment. Are the attendees are random and representative? If the patients of the first group is stronger and have advantages in their [defencing] ability, their [recovering] period is, of course, shorter than that of the second group with much frailer patients. Whether the attendees of the two groups are in the similar health conditions are a vital prerequisite element behind this study.

Even [assumpting] that both the course and the result of this study is reasonable, the conclusion makes the oversimplification fault. Whether the muscle strain patients must take the antibiotics [therapy]? Even we believe that the antibiotics have effect on muscle strain, but, if the antibiotics medicines have strong [negative] aspect on the future health of patients? Without further study on bad [effects] of antibiotics medicine, drawing such hasty conclusion is irresponsible and, moreover, dangerous for patients.


In summary, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the [author] must rule out the evidence that the attendees are similar between two groups and no [disastrous] effect of antibiotics medicine for future lives of patients.

icefirekkUID: 2293126

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have longsuspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healingquickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been provedby preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The firstgroup of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr.Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibioticsregularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, onaverage, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in thesecond group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, weregiven sugar pills, although the patients believed they were takingantibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantlyreduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strainwould be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."
WORDS: 349          TIME: 00:27:51          DATE: 2007-8-19 12:21:44

In this analysis, thearguer attempts to convince us that all patients who suffer musclestrain should be advised to take antibiotics which seemly have positiveeffects on their treatment. To substantiate this conclusion, the authorcites a study of two groups of patients and makes a result that therecuperation time was somewhat quicker. While this argument has somemerits, several conspicuous flaws seriously undermine the line ofreasoning.个人认为你除了单纯复述+无关紧要的末尾一句：”论证有错误“外，是否可以点个中心思想呢：实验结论不可靠，盲目推广。

First of all, theresults of the study are basically preliminary which indicate that theoutcome is somewhat groundless and unconvincing. Perhaps the healingvelocity of patients is fast at first and gradually slows down becauseof the declining effect of antibiotics medicine or the [resistant]effect of body to the antibiotics medicine. Without get the ultimateresult of this experiment, author can not draw this [consumptious]conclusion that antibiotics medicine has positive effect in thetreatment of muscle strain.

Even assuming thatthe result is acceptable, there are some [suspective] points lyingwithin the course of the experiment. Are the attendees are random andrepresentative? If the patients of the first group is stronger and haveadvantages in their [defencing] ability, their [recovering] period is,of course, shorter than that of the second group with much frailerpatients. Whether the attendees of the two groups are in the similarhealth conditions are a vital prerequisite element behind this study.补充：医生的不同，护理方式会影响结果

Even [assumpting] assuming that both the course and the result of this study is reasonable, theconclusion makes the oversimplification fault. Whether the musclestrain patients must take the antibiotics [therapy]? Even we believethat the antibiotics have effect on muscle strain, but, if theantibiotics medicines have strong [negative] aspect on the futurehealth of patients? Without further study on bad [effects] ofantibiotics medicine, drawing such hasty conclusion is irresponsibleand, moreover, dangerous for patients.部分与第一点论证重复


In summary, thisargument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it logicallyacceptable, the [author] must rule out the evidence that the attendeesare similar between two groups and no [disastrous] effect potential harmness ofantibiotics medicine for future lives of patients.

斑竹好
总体感觉：思路乱  我的提纲
1、实验不是假设的有力证据：无法说明有二次感染。实验者也未必是严重肌肉损伤,无法证明是二次感染影响恢复速度。
2、实验设置不对：体质，损伤程度，两个医生的护理区别等
3、即使实验证明假设，推广假设到所有肌肉损伤者未必合适：副作用，效果明显不，对不严重的病人用antibiotics  是否多此一举？
你的段落组织不够。对论点的批判扩展可多写                        Iris批

SatanicUID: 2362211

+U 小组iris作业Argument 227, 8.18
ARGUMENT227 - The following appeared as aneditorial in a local newspaper.
"In order to attract visitors to Central Plaza downtown and to return the plaza to its former glory, the city should prohibit skateboarding there and instead allow skateboarders to use an area in Monroe Park.At Central Plaza, skateboard users are about theonly people one sees now, and litter and defaced property have made the plazaunattractive. In a recent survey of downtown merchants, the majority supporteda prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza. Clearly, banning skateboarding in Central Plaza will make the area a place wherepeople can congregate for fun or for relaxation."
The intend of the author is inspiring and the argument seems cogent at first glance. However, the author overemphasizes the affect of the skateboard users and the survey, and overlooks several important elements that actually play vital roles in the flourishing of the Central Plaza.一般来说第一段主要概括文章结论和假设，再概括说一下错误。对于你这样开头是否好，我没有发言权。不过我因该学习一下你的概括句子
To begin with, the validity of the survey is open to question.不知之中说法是否妥当 Since the respondents of the survey are downtown merchants, who care the profit of their business most regardless of the activities in the Central Plaza. If these merchants were asked to answer the options after they were informed that the litter and defaced property are caused by the skateboard users, they would certainly form the unapproved opinion. 你看看题目，丢垃圾是一个假设，而调查是另一个假设，2者最好不要混在一起It is highly possible that these merchants do not have business near the Central Plaza and the result of the survey is guided by the surveyor. Also, merchants may ascribe their profit fall to the activities of the skateboard users, while in fact it is not the case.
What about the litter and defaced property in the Central Plaza? Has the author any evidence to prove that that are result of the activities of skateboarding? It is possible that the litter and defaced property have long existed there because of the lack of budget on repairing and cleaning. Furthermore, the author suggest that allow skateboarders to use an area in Monroe Park instead of Central Plaza is unwarranted. What if 这里是什么意思，还是我不懂？that the skateboarders like to skate in Central Park because of the spacious plaza? What if the Monroe Park is an area full of artificial waterfalls and facilities? Under these circumstance, allow them to skate in Monroe Park will cause more damage eventually.注意复数和主语总觉得用陈述句可能比反问句好点，可能对你反问句的意思不太完全把握
Finally, prohibition of the skateboarding in Central Park may result in 宾语从句现行词that no one can be seen any more in it. Why? The author fails to consider other possibilities that really behind the unattractiveness. Does the transportation not convenient for the people who intend to exercise in Central Plaza? Or does the necessary facilities inadequate for holding a party or picnic? Each scenario can cause the Central Plaza to be unattractive regardless of the activities of skateboarding, moreover这个词能引导2个句子吗，似乎是个副词的说 activities of skateboarding can attract more exerciser in the Plaza and play a role in regaining its former glory.
Take into consideration above mentioned possibilities, it is presumptuous for us to prohibit the activities of skateboarding, and it is ridiculous for us to wait for the Central Plaza to be可以换个动词 its former glory just do nothing more to improve the environmental condition related to Central Plaza such as transportation, facilities, and service spots.
整篇文章还是不错的，错误比以前少多了，3个批驳立足点都是对的，可能反问句稍微少点比较好。还有就是有些句子写前要斟酌一下，怎么我看得不太明白，还是句子中文化了点
斑竹好
总体感觉：思路乱  我的提纲
1、实验不是假设的有力证据：无法说明有二次感染。实验者也未必是严重肌肉损伤,无法证明是二次感染影响恢复速度。
2、实验设置不对：体质，损伤程度，两个医生的护理区别等
3、即使实验证明假设，推广假设到所有肌肉损伤者未必合适：副作用，效果明显不，对不严重的病人用antibiotics  是否多此一举？
你的段落组织不够。对论点的批判扩展可多写
我对你的批改解释一下
首先要谢谢你给我批改。我要接受你的一个意见，如果时间允许，把首段莫版改成错误概括
其实我对 抗生素 和 肌肉损伤的关系不是很明白，不太懂为什么抗生素可以治疗肌肉损伤，所以你说的二次感染 我就更不明白
你说的医生护理是一个方面
不过我想说一句，A考察的是考生的论证能力，并不是需要考生理解抗生素和肌肉损伤，更不用二次感染，不然这就违背了ETS的公平性原则，因为我不学医。其实A的批驳点很多，我仅仅抓住某些进行有力批驳，我尽力去做到德是批驳点准确，批驳层次分明，批驳有力，语句正确，尽量长句。其他的可能是我没有你知识面广了 赫赫 欢迎交流