Argument51 0806G加速度作文小组第一次作业

雪梦无痕UID: 2447732

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."


In this argument, the arguer concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the conclusion, the arguer presents a study of two groups of patients. This argument suffers from some critical fallacies.

The major problem with this argument is the unwarranted assumption that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Two reasons may go as follows: First of all, the two doctors in the study provided is different, one is specializing in sports medicine while the other is a general physician. The arguer fails to take into account whether it is the help of doctors or the help of medicine plays more function in the healing process; maybe it is because Dr.Newland is far better than the average doctors that the recuperation time in the first group is 40 percent quicker on average than typically expected. Moreover, the arguer ignores to compare the health condition of the two groups of patients before they accept the treatment.It is fully possible that the condition of the first group is better than the second on average or the reverse situation. In this case, the recuperation time would lose its meaning in the comparison. Furthermore, the arguer forgets to mention the difference among the other therapies the patients take in the treatment.

Another problem worth pointing out is the hasty generalization. First of all, it is likely that other factors other than antibiotics function in the process, for instance, we can see in the second group it is the psychology of the patients instead of antibiotics that plays a more important role in healing. In addition, from our common knowledge we know that if we take antibiotics many times, the virus in our body will produce antibody in order to prevent the effect of the medicine we take, in other words, the virus becomes stronger itself. So next time we take the antibiotic, it might lose its previous function. What's more, the study is an evidence to show that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Severe muscle strain is only a kind of muscle strain, there are other forms of muscle strains as well. We can not say the antibiotics are useful to other kinds of muscle strain much the way that we can not say medicine which is useful to cure headache is also useful for ADIS. Last but not least, the arguer fails to take into consideration that since the antibiotics have some bad effects to some group of people, they can not take antibiotics at all and neither do those who have a strong body need to take antibiotics for a slight muscle strain.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer would have to present factors to prove that antibiotics really play an important function in the treatment. To solidify the argument, the arguer must produce more evidence concerning that all people who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics.



[ 本帖最后由 雪梦无痕 于 2008-1-17 17:07 编辑 ]

kittyhelloUID: 2446997

先把自己的发上来，再改楼上的

唉！自己写的很糟糕~这一片真的不知道说什么好~
大家猛砸砖~


Before prescribing large quantity of antibiotics to all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain, the evidence given by the argument should be reexamined from other aspects. Based on a preliminary result of a study of two groups of patients, the author seems to assume that taking antibiotics will be beneficial to treatment of muscle strain without examining any other factors which have affected the results of the study.

First of all, the author fails to consider other alternatives to 40 percent quicker than the typically recuperation time. Such alternatives may include the general health of the patient to begin with, their ages, other specific treatments they may acquire during the study. If they take regularly exercise, or their average ages is quite younger, it is entirely possible that they may recover quicker than the average expected, and that is not a result of taking antibiotics. In addition, as mentioned in the argument that they are in the charge of Dr. Newland, a doctor specializes in sports medicine, and then we may wonder whether Dr. Newland provides some extra remedy to his patients. The argument, however, doesn’t mention it at all. In addition, we also do not the severity of their muscle injuries, and is there any possibility that their shorter recuperation time is due to the less severity. For that matter, it may be not safe to say it is the antibiotics that shorten the recovery time.

Similarly, the author does not rule out any other possibility that affecting the result of the second groups, such as their average severity of injuries, their ages, and general health at the beginning. Further the researcher adding sugar pills to the second group seems to shadow the result of study without antibiotics.

Furthermore, the author goes not differentiates severity of muscle strain and causes behind them. The author provides no evidence to prove that they share the same cause that is secondary infections. Since they are representative of different injuries, we may wonder if antibiotic work in any situation, or if there is any side effect to take antibiotics? The argument fails to figure them out so that it may be not advisable to all patients who suffer from muscle injuries.

In conclusion, to convince that taking antibiotics will be helpful to all kind of muscle injuries, more detail information should be provided which may come out of a more accurate scientific research.

kittyhelloUID: 2446997

In this argument, the arguer concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the conclusion, the arguer presents a study of two groups of patients. This argument suffers from some critical fallacies.

The major problem with this argument is the unwarranted assumption that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. (我感觉这句话似乎好像不是作者假设的，而是整个题目给出的需要证明的一个东西)Two reasons may go as follows: First of all, the two doctors in the study provided is different, one is specializing in sports medicine while the other is a general physician. (there are two different doctors conducting the two groups )The arguer fails to take into account whether it is the help of doctors or the help of medicine plays more function in the healing process（这句话读着有些别扭）; maybe it is because Dr.Newland is far better than the average doctors that the recuperation time in the first group is 40 percent quicker on average than typically expected. Moreover, the arguer ignores to compare the health condition of the two groups of patients before they accept the treatment.It is fully possible that the condition of the first group is better than the second on average or the reverse situation.（这里可以深入写，为什么比第二组好呢？） In this case, the recuperation time would lose its meaning in the comparison. Furthermore, the arguer forgets to mention the difference among the other therapies the patients take in the treatment.（forget给人的感觉是做了但是忘了，但是实际上你可以追问他是否有这样方面的差异）

Another problem worth pointing out is the hasty generalization.(这句话写的太generalization了，具体是文章的哪里太hasty了，在主题句里面说清楚比较好) First of all, it is likely that other factors other than （apart from）antibiotics function in the process, for instance, we can see in the second group it is the psychology of the patients instead of antibiotics that plays a more important role in healing. In addition, from our common knowledge we know that(common sense tells) if we take antibiotics many times, the virus in our body will produce antibody in order to prevent the effect of the medicine we take, in other words, the virus becomes stronger itself. So next time we take the antibiotic, it might lose its previous function.(这里分析的很好～)What's more, the study is an evidence to show that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Severe muscle strain is only a kind of muscle strain, there are other forms of muscle strains as well. We can not say the antibiotics are useful to other kinds of muscle strain much the way that we can not say medicine which is useful to cure headache is also useful for ADIS. （分析很好，话再简洁点就更好了）

Last but not least, the arguer fails to take into consideration that since the antibiotics have some bad effects to some group of people, they can not take antibiotics at all and neither do those who have a strong body need to take antibiotics for a slight muscle strain.（take into consideration可以这样接从句用吗？你用了两次，但是我不是很确定这样用可以可以，或者好不好～）

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion（drawing any solid conclusion）, the arguer would have to present factors to prove that antibiotics really play an important function in the treatment. To solidify the argument, the arguer must produce more evidence concerning that all people who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics.(结尾还是应该改一下的～虽然格式对了，但是与其大而划之的往里面套，不如不说)

lilumiluUID: 2332310

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: 461                   DATE: 2008-1-16 21:51:20

From the argument above, the arguer recommends that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics since the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. In addition, the arguer makes assumption that taking the antibiotics is due to reducing the secondary infections and cites a study of two groups of patients to support his conclusion. However, with further scrutiny, the argument is not persuasive as it stands since the unwarranted assumption and lack of evidence.

Firstly, a gratuitous assumption upon which the recommendation relies is that muscle strain is necessarily due to secondary infections, in other words, the patients with muscle strain are necessarily due to with secondary infections. The arguer fails to provide any evidence about the causal relationship between muscle strain and secondary infections. If the assumption is unstable, the patients with muscle strain are not necessary to take antibiotics in order to reducing the secondary infections.

At the second place, the results of a study of two group of patients are questionable because of the flawed process of experiment. No data about the two groups of patients is provided. What kinds of people two group of patients consist of respectively? Is one group all female and another not? What about the age of these patients? Perhaps the first group consists of all males or adults and the second group is full of old women, which causes that the first group's recuperation time is 40 percent quicker than the latter one. In addition, the background of two doctors is different. It is possible that Dr.Newland has more experiences than Dr.Alton in muscle healing and the first group of patients get more effective cure.

Finally, even if we concede the unwarranted assumption and the questionable evidence,  it is still a hasty generalization that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment without considering all the alternatives and factors. Are the antibiotics fit for all kinds of patients? What about the kids or elder? And are antibiotics harmful for pregnant women? In addition, some patients who are allergic to antibiotics should take other treatment rather than take antibiotics. In view of those alternatives, it is not a good treatment for all the patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics.

In sum, the argument is well-presented, but not throughly well-reasoned. Litter evidence is provided to support arguer's assumption and the results of a study of two group of patients are not persuasive as they stand. To strengthen his recommendation, the arguer should provide more evidence to prove the causal relationship between antibiotics and reducing secondary infections and more information about two groups of patients. Before considering all the alternatives and factors carefully, the recommendation is lack of credibilities.

xiayanshadowUID: 2374500

In this argument, the arguer recommends all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this recommendation, the director cites a study of two groups of patients showing that patients took antibiotics recuperate more quickly than those who took sugars. This argument is flawed in several critical respects.

    A threshold problem with the argument involves the statistical reliability of the survey. There is no concrete information such as age, gender and mood, about patients in different groups, which may cause confusion about the conclusion of the study. For instance, maybe most of the patients in the first group are around twenty years old, while those in the second group are around fifty. The difference in their ages may contribute to the result that patients in the first group recover more quickly only because they are younger.

    Even if the factors such as age, gender and mood of the patients are equally controlled between the two groups, there still exists another variable which may result in the outcome that patients in the first group recover faster than those in the second. Patients in the first group were treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specialized in sports medicine, and the second group were treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician. This difference between the two experiment conditions comes out as a confounding variable of the result in the study. Maybe it is because Dr. Newland is more specialized than Dr. Alton that patients in group one recover more quickly than group two.

    Finally, the arguer concludes that all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain are well advised to take antibiotics when being treated. He draws this conclusion only based on this study, and consumes that patients in the study represent all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. However, there exists some other factors should be considered, for example, whether the bodies of a patients resist antibiotics itself. If so, doctors should not give antibiotics to their patients.

    In sum, the study's statistical reliability and its experiment condition are questionable. To strengthen the recommendation, the arguer must provide clear information about the patients in the study and let only one doctor to conduct experiment in both of the groups. The arguer should not suggest that all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain are well suggested to take antibiotics.

loogloogUID: 2447845

写得慌，乱
In this newsletter, the arguer concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. In order to support the conclusion, the arguer cites the results of the recent experiment. However, this argument suffers from several flaws which render it wholly discreditable as it stand.

To begin with, the arguer provides no evidence that the condition of the patients and the extent of hurting. In order to obtain a right and reliable results in the experiment, the two groups must keep ate the similar condition, especially the patient, which is the essence of the study. Without the necessary overlook about them, it is entirely possible that the patients treated by Dr. Newland is just better than those treated by Dr. Alton. Or perhaps, the patients treated by Dr. Newland is younger than those treated by Dr. Alton. Common sense tells us that the age played close impact on the speed of recovery.

Furthermore, even if i concede the health condition and age levels of the two groups are similar, the arguer also involves in the wrong analogy of the result of the experiments, since the acknowledgement level of the two doctor are too difference. As we all known, the specialist will be more useful and professional when curing the special cases. Just because of the differences between the two doctor will cause the great diction of the results. It is possible that at the same condition but the doctor, the speed of recovery is diversity.  In order to strength the conclusion, the particular of the doctor should be provided.

Secondly, the arguer also commits a fallacy "a hasty generalization" by advice all patients who diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics as part of their treatment. The antibiotics maybe is efficiency to those patients in the experiments, as they are just the horse strain. Can we conclude from the horse strain patient that all other patient should take the similar methods? Yet, the author offers no evidence to support the universality of the curing. Perhaps, this method is just better for elbow joint damage. In short, lacking evidence that condition on the all patients treated in the experiment can be representation for this kind of patients, the arguer cannot convince me on the basis of the experiment's conclusion that the antibiotics should be advise to other patients with muscle strain.

To sum up, the arguer is ignore the difference between the patients and the doctor. At the same time, arguer oversimplified that the patient with muscle strain should be treated with the same cure lacking the evidences.

kittyhelloUID: 2446997

In this newsletter, the arguer concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. In order to support the conclusion, the arguer cites the results of the recent experiment. However, this argument suffers from several flaws which render it wholly discreditable as it stand.

To begin with, the arguer provides no evidence that the condition of the patients and the extent (severity )of hurting.(injuries) In order to obtain a right and reliable results in the experiment, the two groups must keep ate the similar condition, especially the patient, which is the essence of the study. Without the necessary overlook about them, it is entirely possible that the patients treated by Dr. Newland is just better than those treated by Dr. Alton. Or perhaps, the patients treated by Dr. Newland is younger than those treated by Dr. Alton. Common sense tells us that the age played close impact on the speed of recovery. (满分范文里面有一个论述没有区分这个受伤程度的，你去看看)

Furthermore, even if i concede the health condition and age levels of the two groups are similar, the arguer also involves in the wrong analogy of the result of the experiments, since the acknowledgement level of the two doctor are too difference. （这块说的比较繁琐，一点一点的说，不要有那么夺得conced或者是acknow。你想想你这一段主要要攻击那一点）As we all known, the specialist will be more useful and professional when curing the special cases.（他们都是专业的，但是专攻不同，可能用的疗法就不同，于是就可能导致结果过不可靠） Just because of the differences between the two doctor will cause the great diction of the results. It is possible that at the same condition but the doctor, the speed of recovery is diversity.  In order to strength the conclusion, the particular of the doctor should be provided.（我的感觉是说的越具体越好）

Secondly,（Finally） the arguer also commits a fallacy "a hasty generalization" by advice （advising）all patients who diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics as part of their treatment. The antibiotics maybe is （may be efficient 或者may be of efficiency）efficiency to those patients in the experiments, as they are just the horse strain. Can we conclude from the horse strain patient that all other patient should take the similar methods? Yet, the author offers no evidence to support the universality of the curing. Perhaps, this method is just better for elbow joint damage.(这块挺好的，我没有想到,但是语言方面应该改进) In short, lacking evidence that condition on the all patients treated in the experiment can be representation（representative） for this kind of patients, the arguer cannot convince me on the basis of the experiment's conclusion that the antibiotics should be advised to other (all)patients with muscle strain.

To sum up, the arguer is（去掉） ignore the difference between the patients and the doctor. At the same time, arguer oversimplified that the patient with muscle strain should be treated with the same cure lacking the evidences.

语言方面，a和i相比，其实更要求语言的精确，多看范文官方也好，北美也罢。不行了就背!我们时间都不多了！加油！

xiaoxiao022UID: 2293675

In this argument, the arguer concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the conclusion, the arguer presents a study of two groups of patients. This argument suffers from some critical fallacies.

The major problem with [in] this argument is the unwarranted assumption that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Two reasons may go as follows(清晰明了) First of all, the two doctors in the study provided is different, one is specializing [这里是现在进行时吗？这里我不太懂] in sports medicine while the other is a general physician. The arguer fails to take into account whether it is the help of doctors or the help of medicine plays more [如果用main/major的话会不会稍好些] function in the healing process; maybe it is because Dr.Newland is far better than the average doctors that the recuperation time in the first group is 40 percent quicker on average than typically expected. Moreover, the arguer ignores to compare the health condition of the two groups of patients before they accept [receive] the treatment. It is fully possible that the condition of the first group is better than the second on average or the reverse situation. In this case, the recuperation time would lose its meaning in the comparison. [感觉好像应该有专门的说法] Furthermore, the arguer forgets to mention the difference [relevant information ]among the other therapies the patients take in the treatment.

Another problem worth pointing out is the hasty generalization. First of all, it is likely that other factors other than antibiotics function in the process, for instance, we can see in the second group it is the psychology [psychological effect] of the patients instead of antibiotics that plays a more important role in healing[hasty generalization是指草率推广，我不太理解这里antibiotics是怎么推广到psychology的]. In addition, from our common knowledge [common sense] we know that if we take antibiotics many times [quite frequently], the virus in our body will produce antibody in order to prevent the effect of the medicine we take, in other words, the virus becomes stronger itself. So next time we take the antibiotic, it might lose its previous function. ]What's more, the study is [stands as] an evidence to show that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Severe muscle strain is only a kind of muscle strain; there are other forms of muscle strains as well. [We can not say the antibiotics are useful to other kinds of muscle strain much the way that we can not say medicine which is useful to cure headache is also useful for ADIS.写得挺好] Last but not least, the arguer fails to take into consideration that since the antibiotics have some bad effects to some group of people, they can [should] not take antibiotics at all and neither do those who have a strong body need to take antibiotics for a slight muscle strain.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer would have to present factors[这里的factors指的是什么] to prove that antibiotics really play an important function in the treatment. To solidify the argument, the arguer must produce more evidence concerning that all people who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics.
[文章的条理清楚，论证的关系也明朗。在句式和用词方面比如function, play a …rule出镜率有点高，it is …强调句用得太多。此外有关草率推广的那一段逻辑层次我看得不太懂。因为我范文读得少有些用法没见过，修改若有不周之处请见谅。]

雪梦无痕UID: 2447732

From the argument above(感觉有些别扭，可改成in the argument), the arguer recommends that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics since the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. In addition, the arguer makes assumption that taking the antibiotics is due to reducing the secondary infections and cites a study of two groups of patients to support his conclusion. However, with further scrutiny, the argument is not persuasive as it stands since(改成because of会不会更好些) the unwarranted assumption and lack of evidence.

Firstly, a gratuitous assumption upon which the recommendation relies is that muscle strain is necessarily due to secondary infections, in other words, the patients with muscle strain are necessarily due to with(?with是不是去掉) secondary infections. The arguer fails to provide any evidence about the causal relationship between muscle strain and secondary infections. If the assumption is unstable, the patients with muscle strain are not necessary to take antibiotics in order to reducing the secondary infections.

At the second place, the results of a study of two group（s） of patients are questionable because of the flawed process of experiment. No (specific)data about the two groups of patients is provided. What kinds of people two group of patients consist of(个人建议改成被动语态，我觉得这样顺口点) respectively? Is one group all female（s） and another not? What about the age of these patients? Perhaps the first group consists of all males or adults and the second group is full of old women, which causes(cause 后面用从句感觉别扭，改为which causes the first group's recuperation time 40 percent quicker than the latter one是不是更好？) that the first group's recuperation time is 40 percent quicker than the latter one. In addition, the background of two doctors is different. It is possible that Dr.Newland has more experiences（experience） than Dr.Alton in muscle healing and the first group of patients(改为因果thus the first group of patients could get) get more effective cure.

Finally, even if we concede the unwarranted assumption and the questionable evidence,  it is still a hasty generalization that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment without considering all the alternatives and factors. Are the antibiotics fit for all kinds of patients? What about the kids or elder(the old)? And are antibiotics harmful for pregnant women? In addition, some patients who are allergic to antibiotics should take other treatment rather than take antibiotics. In view of those alternatives, it is not a good treatment for all the patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics.

In sum, the argument is well-presented, but not throughly well-reasoned. Litter(是不是想写little) evidence is provided to support arguer's assumption and the results of a study of two group(s) of patients are not persuasive as they stand. To strengthen his recommendation, the arguer should provide more evidence to prove the causal relationship between antibiotics and reducing secondary infections and more information about two groups of patients. Before considering all the alternatives and factors carefully, the recommendation is lack of credibilities.
总的来说大错都写到了。模板套用得不错，第一次写成这样很好了。

loogloogUID: 2447845

改 xiayanshadow (越堕落越快乐)

In this argument, the arguer recommends all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this recommendation, the director（arguer） cites a study of two groups of patients showing that patients （who）took antibiotics recuperate(d) more quickly than those who took sugars. This argument is flawed in several critical respects.
    A threshold problem with the argument involves the statistical reliability (用缺少数据更具体些吧 oversimplification)of the survey. There is no concrete information(,) such as age, gender and mood, about patients in different groups, which may cause confusion about the conclusion of the study. For instance, maybe most of the patients in the first group are around twenty years old, while those in the second group are around fifty. The difference in their ages may contribute to the result that patients in the first group recover more quickly only because they are younger.(在写一个gender的例子就更好了)
    Even if the factors such as age, gender and mood of the patients（Even if the factors mentioned above） are equally controlled between the two groups, there still exists another variable which may result in the outcome that patients in the first group recover faster than those in the second.（觉得这个句子比较别扭） Patients in the first group were treated for muscle injuries(删掉for muscle injuries) by Dr. Newland,(a specialist in sports medicine,这样比较对称) a doctor who specialized in sports medicine, and the second group were treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician. This difference between the two experiment conditions comes out as a confounding variable of the result in the study. Maybe it is because Dr. Newland is more specialized than Dr. Alton （so）that patients in group one recover more quickly than group two.(我觉得这一部分应该细写一下)
    Finally, the arguer concludes that all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain are well advised to take antibiotics when being treated. He (or she) draws this conclusion only based on this study, and consumes(assumes) that patients in the study represent all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. However, there exists some other factors should be considered, for example, whether the bodies of a patients(去s) resist antibiotics itself(immunity of everyone would be variety). If so（a） patient can resist pathogenic microbiology) , doctors should not give antibiotics or give less to this  patient.
In sum, the study's statistical reliability and its experiment condition are questionable. To strengthen the recommendation, the arguer must provide clear information about the patients in the study and let only one doctor to conduct experiment in both of the groups. The arguer should not suggest that all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain are well suggested to take antibiotics.
全文，名称要统一。

雪梦无痕UID: 2447732

Before prescribing large quantity of antibiotics to all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain, the evidence given by the argument should be reexamined from other aspects. Based on a preliminary result of a study of two groups of patients, the author seems to assume that taking antibiotics will be beneficial to treatment of muscle strain without examining any other factors which have affected the results of the study. (开头段一般不需具体指明文章的逻辑错误，只需说明有一些逻辑错误就好，第一句话一般重复作者的结论或者主张，可以背一些模板)

First of all, the author fails to consider other alternatives to 40 percent quicker than（没有指明什么东西40 percent quicker than the typically recuperation time） the typically recuperation time. Such alternatives may include the general health (建议加上condition) of the patient to begin with（？没看懂这里的to begin with的意思）, their ages, other specific treatments they may acquire（应该是receive）during the study. If（建议换成whether） they take regularly exercise, or their average ages is quite younger（和谁比younger）, it is entirely possible that they may recover quicker than the average expected, and that is not a result of taking antibiotics. In addition, as mentioned in the argument that they are in the charge of Dr. Newland, a doctor specializes in sports medicine, and then we may wonder whether Dr. Newland provides some extra remedy to his patients. The argument, however, doesn’t mention it at all. In addition, we also do not (少了动词know) the severity of their muscle injuries, and is there any possibility that their shorter recuperation time is due to the less severity.（按照文章的语气这里为问好，最好改为陈述句） For that matter, it may be not safe（？应该没有not safe to say 这个说法可改为we can not conclude that） to say it is the antibiotics that shorten the recovery time.

Similarly, the author does not rule out any other possibility that affecting (affect) the result of the second groups (group), such as their average severity of injuries, their ages, and general health at the beginning. Further(没有further这个说法，建议改为moreover) the researcher adding(?adds) sugar pills to the second group seems to shadow the result of study without antibiotics.

Furthermore, the author goes not differentiates severity of muscle strain (没看懂) and causes behind them. The author provides no evidence to prove that they share the same cause that is（可改为in other words） secondary infections. Since they are representative of different injuries, we may wonder if antibiotic work(s) in any situation, or if there is any side effect to take antibiotics? The argument fails to figure them out so that it may be not advisable to all patients who suffer from muscle injuries.

In conclusion, to convince that taking antibiotics will be helpful to all kind of muscle injuries, more detail information should be provided which may come out of a more accurate scientific research.

wode56585759UID: 2305566

晚上洗完澡才发现留了作业，现写的，哎呀这个水平，没字数，没词汇，结构展不开~~~~
大家尽量拍
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: 309          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-1-17 23:21:08

In this argument, the author recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment as the doctor advised. It seems a strong conclusion for the first glare, but we can find it has some flows that weaken the alternative.

First but not the last, the author did not provides us enough information about the experiment. The patients' body condition, ages, history of injuries all of this may influence the result of the experiment. Maybe the first group patients are younger than the group two, which makes them have the ability to recuperate quickly than the second group. In addition, the author ignore other elements which will effect the result of the experiment such as the environment or the diet condition of the two group, it will makes the result different if this elements have some difference.   

Secondly, the author mentioned above the concept that "typically excepted" is open to doubt that what it exactly mean, except by who and the accurate level of the recuperation. As we know the muscle strain is a kind of sport injuries the doctor of the first group specializes in sport medicine with more experience of treat the muscle strain, which may reduce the recuperation time of the patients in the first group.  

Third, perhaps it is the side effect of the sugar pill influence the second group's patients take a lone recuperation time. And we are not been told the detail of the treatment of the two groups, maybe the first group doctor have some special way to treat this kind of injuries such as Chinese traditional treatment which will makes the patients recuperate quickly.  

To sum up, the author fails to make the conclusion reliable with so limited evidences. To strengthen the conclusion the author need to provide us more persuasive information about the above-mentioned possibility.

小组里可能我考得最早了1.25的

jerome_huUID: 2407996

美酒加咖啡改的 十分感谢！ argu是赶工完成，本不该见人。 就当benchmark好了
The author of this editorial recommends that[去掉] to reduce the recuperation time of severe muscle strain,
Patients are encouraged to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this recommendation the author cites the fact that when patients with muscle injuries are divided into two groups for treatment,  the first group, procuring a doctor specialization in sports medicine and use antibiotics obtain a 40% faster recovery time. [这个句子很中式，我能明白你的意思，但是有语病，你自己去掉when从句看看，是不是很怪？] While the contrasting group, with a general physician and patients taking sugar pill, obtain an ordinary recuperation period. Given these reasons, differing what author concludes, I think evidences provide scant support for the recommendation.
【我觉得这一段写的有点冗长，可以简洁点。】
To begin with, the author assumes that all conditions of patients in research that might affect the rate of recovery are equally【改为equal】 when groups are divided. However, with the possibility that patients in the second group suffer severe injury, the outcome can be quite different. The common sense lies that severe injury need longer recuperation time. For that matter, without details about initial condition of the patients, the conclusion is partly weakened.
【加个连接词会更好】The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, is【are】 spontaneously to have better recuperation time. By changing【replacing】 Dr. Newland with Dr. Alton, I believe the recuperation times are[can be] also switched[shortened]. The arrangement of different doctors only serves to undermine author’s conclusion, for the contribution of doctor’s survey to the recovery.[for是接从句吧] The causal relationship【具体点】 is scant without considering and ruling out these and other[二者取其一即可] possible differences.
Additionally, in asserting that patients in first group are treating for muscle injuries, the author try[tries] to convince me the research can be applied to draw conclusion in severe muscle strain. The author relies on what might amount to an unfair analogy between muscle injuries and severe strain. Perhaps caring method of muscle injury meets severe strain; if not, then with all equaled[equal] medical environment there is no guarantee of an expected result. Or perhaps the conclusion might served as testify[改为名词] of a medical accident if patients are permanent damaged after the treatment.

  I n conclusion, the recommendation is not well supported. To convince me that[多余] the author should provide equal environment on the doctor, and patient with initial condition suffers severe muscle strain. In the way, can the affect of taking antibiotics appear.

错误基本都找出了，请多注意语法问题，特别是从句的使用。

lilumiluUID: 2332310

Before prescribing large quantity of antibiotics to all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain, the evidence given by the argument should be reexamined from other aspects. Based on a preliminary result of a study of two groups of patients, the author seems to assume that taking antibiotics will be beneficial to treatment of muscle strain without examining any other factors which have affected the results of the study.

First of all, the author fails to consider other alternatives to 40 percent quicker than the typically recuperation time. Such alternatives may include the general health of the patient to begin with, their ages, other specific treatments they may acquire during the study. If they take regularly exercise, or their average ages is quite younger, it is entirely possible that they may recover quicker than the average expected, and that is not a result of taking antibiotics. In addition, as mentioned in the argument that they are in the charge of Dr. Newland, a doctor specializes in sports medicine, and then we may wonder whether Dr. Newland provides some extra remedy to his patients.(我认为这么说有点诡辩，说照顾的好可以，但是另外服药不合适) The argument, however, doesn’t mention it at all. In addition, we also do not the severity of their muscle injuries, and is there any possibility that their shorter recuperation time is due to the less severity.(这点说的不错，我没想到。) For that matter, it may be not safe to say it is the antibiotics that shorten the recovery time.

Similarly, the author does not rule out any other possibility that affecting the result of the second groups, such as their average severity of injuries, their ages, and general health at the beginning. Further(这个further，你是想表示递进关系吧，可以这么用么？改为furthermore可否？) the researcher adding sugar pills to the second group(这个主语应该是人吧，你指的应该是behavior吧) seems to shadow the result of study without antibiotics.

Furthermore, the author goes not differentiates severity of muscle strain and causes behind them. The author provides no evidence to prove that they share the same cause that is secondary infections. Since they are representative of different injuries, we may wonder if antibiotic work in any situation, or if there is any side effect to take antibiotics? The argument fails to figure them out so that it may be not advisable to all patients who suffer from muscle injuries.(这一段应该是想指出并非适用于所有的patients，但是ts好像不是说的不很明显)

In conclusion, to convince that taking antibiotics will be helpful to all kind of muscle injuries, more detail information should be provided which may come out of a more accurate scientific research.

总得来说，文章觉得挺流畅的，句式也不错。逻辑方面，body1论述得很清楚也很充分，而body2看上去还是在讨论这个study的问题，所以lz其实就是列举了两个错误，一个是study，一个是最好结论推广的问题，但第二点论述的少了，还应展开。逻辑错误还是该多找一个。

flyingellyUID: 2426567

It is apparent that the experiment taken is lack of sufficient effective information. First, there is no further description of the situations of the two groups of patients, such as the gender composition and the age structure of the two groups, also whether the injuries they suffered are of the same kind and extent, whether they are in the same physical fitness while these may have significant relations with the rehabilitation process. All these factors may alter the results impressively. In a word, contrast experiments should be taken within equal conditions to guarantee differences attributing to antibiotics, not others.  [all the other factors stay the same to make all the differences are caused by the investigated factor.去掉] Second, in order to get a forceful conclusion, the experiment should be take in a relative large group of people for it is more likely to touch the reality from the viewpoint of statistics. Unfortunately, these are not contained in the essay above.

Additionally, the researchers failed to exclude other factors that may cause the differences of the recovery process of the two groups. Maybe the long suspicion that secondary infections keep the patients from healing quickly reveals their considerations of other factors. There goes[ the story of an idiom in ancient China去掉]an ancient Chinese idiom, two people suffered from teeth pain[ toothache] with the same appearance went to an experienced doctor and got entirely different suggestions.我觉得之前这句要重写 This may be explained by a [deeper realization of the]需要么？ various relations between the form and the causes of a disease. The principle is also applicable here. People take biotic may recover sooner, but there may be some other causes. In the essay we are only given the average recuperation time in advance, this in some extent reveal there that do exist individual differences. Also outer differences cannot be neglected, for example, those who been taken care of more seriously may enjoy a more favorable recovery conditions.

Furthermore, the conclusion is lack of logic. Even if we have convicted that biotic may do good to the rehabilitation of severe muscle strain, we cannot say that all the patients suffered form muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics. Besides, to some extent, people inclined to admit that antibiotics may accumulate in human's body and eventually lead to an antibody production which makes the body has no resistance to biotic any more. Maybe we should avoid taking excessive biotic. The action of advising biotic to all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain without further analysis may be arbitrary and breach of duty. There may be some alternatives. Also, sometimes biotic maybe do harm to certain patients’ recovery for herein the experiment didn't investigate the negative influence of biotic.

In conclusion, the author's conclusion needs further supports.