修改argument【jet】41楼

hds123523000UID: 2454889

41楼

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: 572The author of this article written in a medical newsletter made unreasonable conclusion that the hypothesis of secondary infections keeping some patients from healing quickly after muscle strain has been proved by an experiment, which is full of logical flaws.【观点正确】The basic flaw is that that【多余了吧】the author did not give us any data to show that the patients of the two experimental groupshave【这个have是不是有点中国英语的用法？用fall是不是更好一点】 muscle strain as severe as each other to make sure that start line【s 与后面谓语一致】 of the two kinds of treatments are the same. Also, no evidence is provided that the secondary infections of the two group(s) of patients are at a similar level【我觉得这句话多余，因为前面就是讨论的生病情况是不是相同的，二次感染这件事情很难说是不是程度一样】. According to the author, it is possible that the patients in the first group have muscle strain much less severe than those in the second group so that they healed faster than their counterparts which【who吧】 have nothing to do with the different treatments they took.Moreover, the doctors of the two groups are experts in different fields, which also made the results【可以不用复数啊】 of the study valueless in proving the hypothesis(这一点可以不要吧，和前面made the results of the study valueless有点重复). In the newsletter, the author told us that the patients in the first group were treated by Dr. Newland who specializes in sports medicine. Meanwhile, in the other group, the patients who have the muscle strain troubles were treated by Dr. Alton who was just a general physician【这里不用just比较好，感觉好像有点贬低general physician】. We can make 【an】easy conclusion that even not only the patients but also the doctors are different in the two group(s), and that makes the results unable to show the direct relationship with the hypothesis presented in the article.Furthermore, the conclusion（不是说conclusion是前面的二次感染吗，怎么又来一个conclusion，这样好像不好吧）the author made from the study that all patients who are diagnose（d） with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is extreme and lacks scientific support. Even if the antibiotics do help a lot in the treatment of the patients who suffered from muscle injuries, it cannot provided to every patients still【这个单词好像有点怪怪的啊】 since it is possible that some patients are hypersusceptible to antibiotics which will lead them to negative conditions even death. It would become rather dangerous for the patients if antibiotics are treated to all kinds of patients without concerning their own situation. In sum, any rush conclusions like 【what】the author made should be thought twice, especially when dealing with diseases. Andno hypothesis can be proved by preliminary results of a study with dubious elements. In order to make it more accurate and reliable, we should control some elements of the experiment and compare the rests with the other group.

评语：总体来说还是写的不错的，特别是能够想到抗生素过敏这点非常好，比我强。但是这篇文章里面出现了一些中式英语，呵呵，大家都是不可避免，一起努力把。呵呵，谢谢，预祝合作愉快、