April小组argument51

deerprinceUID: 2394244

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."

1)      说二次感染一定会发生,这一点没有证据。
2)      两组病人的研究有很多漏洞，没有说服力。
3)      服用抗生素是否适用所有肌肉拉伤病人不一定，而且副作用也没有考虑。
In this newsletter, the arguer recommends that the patients who got severe muscle strain should take antibiotics in order to keep them from the secondary infections. To justify this claim, he arguer provides the evidence based on the results from a study of two groups of patients. But in my view, this argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

On the first hand, whether the secondary infections should be happened in the patients is unclear. The arguer said the patients could not heal quickly only because they should have secondary infections. But no more evidences are given by the arguer, so we can image that secondary infections may not happen and real reason may be other factors. The conclusion based on unjustified hypothesis is hard to convince us.

On the other hand, the study of two groups of patients lacks persuasion. First, we could not have any information about the ages, render and medical records of them. Maybe the group of patients who took antibiotics is all teenagers who are healthier than the other group. So it is not the antibiotics but the healthy body helps to heal them quickly. Second, the two groups of patients are treated by different doctors. It should be the medical treatment by the doctor but not the antibiotics heal the patients.

Lastly, whether antibiotics are fit for all patients with muscle strain is still open to doubt. No further research may refer more evidence to justify this issue. Furthermore, everyone knows antibiotics may cause negative effect on some patients. But arguer fails to consider these possibilities and suggests all the patients to take the antibiotics in order to heal the muscle strain.

In sum, the conclusion that given by the arguer lacks credibility because the evidence based on a unconvincing study. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence about the secondary infections and more information about the study.

kingwyf87UID: 2457409

In this newsletter, the arguer recommends that the patients who got severe muscle strain should take antibiotics in order to keep them from the secondary infections. To justify this claim, he arguer provides the evidence based on the results from a study of two groups of patients. But in my view, this argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

On the first hand(建议2 3 段使用富有变化的承接句 如：To begin with, Another problem is…), whether the secondary infections should(would) be happened (?to) the patients is unclear. The arguer said the patients could not heal quickly only because they should have secondary infections. But no more evidences are given by the arguer, so we (I) can image (assume) that secondary infections may not happen and (believe that) (the) real reason may be other factors. Thus, the conclusion based on unjustified hypothesis is hard to convince us (me).

On the other hand (见上), the study of two groups of patients lacks persuasion. First, we could not have any information of them (修饰语过长可倒装) about the ages, render and medical records. Maybe the group of patients who took antibiotics is all teenagers who are healthier than the other group. So it is not the antibiotics but the healthy body (young age) helps (contributes) to heal them quickly. Second, the two groups of patients are treated by different doctors. It should be the medical treatment by the doctor but not the antibiotics heal the patients. (个人认为此句缺乏逻辑合理性，因为虽是不同的医生但却用了不同的方法有两个因素都不同很难比较到底是医生还是药品治愈了患者，可假设固定一个因素进行比较，最后建议也小结下TS)

Lastly, whether antibiotics are fit for all patients with muscle strain is still open to doubt. No further research may (could) refer more evidence to justify this issue (study). Furthermore, everyone knows antibiotics may cause negative effect on some patients, but arguer fails to consider these possibilities and suggests all the patients to take the antibiotics in order to heal the muscle strain.

In sum, the conclusion that given by the arguer lacks credibility because the evidence based on a (an) unconvincing study. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence about the secondary infections and more information about the study.(结尾过于概括，建议可以涉及解决三个分论点的方法)


Advise：
1、人称代词要注意使用第一人称，美国是一个强调个性的国家。
2、相同词语注意富有变化。
3、语言可进一步修改增强结构的逻辑性。

此个人意见，仅供参考！