Argument51 【7\8\9\10】小女子做好心理准备接受大家的猛拍了

1001storyUID: 2516918

"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: 649   
      
The argument is well-presented, but not well-reasoned. By making a comparision of the first group of patients, taking antibiotics regularly in the treatment and therefore the recuperation time of them reduced a lot, with the second group of patients, given sugar pills in stead of antibiotics and consequently their recuperation time not significantly reduced ,the argument for advising all patients with muscle strain to use antibiotics as an effective treatment seems logical.
  However, the premise of the conclusion that the antibiotics is the only factor to prevent secondary infections implicated in the argument may be a poor one. A myriad of other factors, such as the use of the tincture of iodine, might just as likely be the cause of prevention of secondary infections. Without ruling out these factors, the author can not be justfiably conclude only by applying antibiotics can protecting patients from secondary infections.
  The author's suggestion depending on the study of the two groups are not reliable to infer the results generally. First, as lacking the information about the absolute number of the patients for the two groups, it is impossible to assess the validity of the results by a vague statistics. If the number of person participating within the study is just only two or three of each group,  who can verify the result from this study. Secondly, the number of samples, in itself, does not ensure the representativeness and randomness.  At the same time, the arguer is falling to consider the possible differences of patients among the two groups in this research. Such differences may include the fact that there are more elderly, children, or  peolpe having a weak constitution in the first group. While there are more younger and adults who excerise in their daily life before injured. In addition, the author has ignored detecting the distinction of doctors who specialize in deferent respects. Perhaps, Dr.Newland of the first one, specializing in sports medicine, may defeat general physician Dr.Alton,  who continues to use the traditional therapy, by applying some special treatment other than antibiotics, like adding the Physical Activity in regular therapy. Therefore, unless the arguer can reasonably exclude these factors, the study would not doubt suggest the anbiotics do play a crucial role in the reduction of recuperation time from such study.
  Although the study can provide sufficient evidences to account for the efficacy ofantibiotics in this tentative research, equating the preliminary results of a study with final evidence is at stake, and giving advice depending on this unreliable theory is dangerous to patients as well. Who can ensure that antibiotics are totally unharmful in the future? It is possible that using antibiotics in regular therapy may bring specimens of research harmful by-products, such as killing helpful flora of us and producing antibody of biotics, which will impede the futher treatment. If so, the antibiotics may not only reduce the recovery time but also intimidate the health of us over a long time. Even if the antibiotics is useful and safe for the group in the study for a long term, the author may not enlarge the scope of patients from the group to all patients with muscle strain. Because we can not set some exceptions apart form the universality. Taking pregnant women as an example, the application of antibiotics may cause some belights for children. Based on these assumptions, the arguer could not come to a hasty declaration that we can take antibiotics as part of treatment.
  To sum up, the author fails to strengthen his claim that taking antibiotics into treatment is an efficacy suggestion, because the evidence cited in this argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. Additionally, he would have to provide more imformation regarding the effect of antibiotics and details of the study. Therefore, if the argument has included the given factors mentioned above, this argument could be more thorough and logically.
哈哈，心里很没底阿！！

zoubinUID: 2501151

很好啊，没底干啥。
文章层次和ETS的6分范文几乎一个样。
我觉得前提应该是抗生素对预防二次感染有效，而不是你所说的是唯一因素。
抨击的很仔细，如果考试时间能写完的话很好，如果不够可以适当少点。

warboyUID: 2444492

The argument is well-presented, but not well-reasoned. By making a comparision of the first group of patients, taking antibiotics regularly in the treatment and therefore the（their）recuperation time of them reduced a lot, with（to compare） the second group of patients, given sugar pills in stead of antibiotics and consequently their recuperation time not significantly reduced ,the argument for advising all patients with muscle strain to use antibiotics as an effective treatment seems logical.
(开头段有点太过于复述题目了，应该简单指出一下arguer的错误吧！)
  However, the premise of the conclusion that the antibiotics is the only factor to prevent secondary infections implicated（及物的不用in吧） in the argument may be a poor one. A myriad of other factors, such as the use of the tincture of iodine, might just as likely be the cause of prevention of secondary infections. Without ruling out these（other） factors, the author can not be justfiably（作者未被证明正确？什么意思?） conclude only by applying antibiotics can protecting patients from secondary infections.(这句话有问题再斟酌一下！)
  The author's suggestion depending on the study of the two groups are not reliable to infer the results generally. First, as lacking the information about the absolute number of the patients for the two groups, it is impossible to assess the validity of the results by a vague statistics. If the number of person participating within the study is just only two or three of each group,  who can verify the result from this study. Secondly, the number of samples, in itself, does not ensure the representativeness and randomness. （感觉最好不要这样质疑这个实验，这是一个科学实验，不是社会调查。一点愚见，如果你见过质疑科学实验的咱们再讨论一下！） At the same time, the arguer is falling to consider the possible differences of patients among the two groups in this research. Such differences may include the fact that there are more elderly, children, or  peolpe having a weak constitution in the first group. While there are more younger and adults who excerise in their daily life before injured. In addition, the author has ignored detecting the distinction of doctors who specialize in deferent respects. Perhaps, Dr.Newland of the first one, specializing in sports medicine, may defeat（这个词用得有点诡异！） general physician Dr.Alton,  who continues to use the traditional therapy, by applying some special treatment other than antibiotics, like adding the Physical Activity in regular therapy. Therefore, unless the arguer can reasonably exclude these factors, the study would not doubt suggest the anbiotics do play a crucial role in the reduction of recuperation time from such study.
（最好写得短一点，有的质疑有点啰嗦！）  Although the study can provide sufficient evidences to account for the efficacy ofantibiotics in this tentative research, equating the preliminary results of a study with final evidence is at stake, and giving advice depending on this unreliable theory is dangerous to patients as well. Who can ensure that antibiotics are totally unharmful in the future? It is possible that using antibiotics in regular therapy may bring specimens of research harmful by-products, such as killing helpful flora（什么意思？）of us and producing antibody of biotics, which will impede the futher treatment. If so, the antibiotics may not only reduce the recovery time but also intimidate the health of us over a long time. Even if the antibiotics is useful and safe for the group in the study for a long term, the author may not enlarge the scope of patients from the group to all patients with muscle strain. Because we can not set some exceptions apart form the universality. Taking pregnant women as an example, the application of antibiotics may cause some belights for children. Based on these assumptions, the arguer could not come to a hasty declaration that we can take antibiotics as part of treatment.
（你是在说side-effect吧？感觉有些话不用说的，写的太详细了）
  To sum up, the author fails to strengthen his claim that taking antibiotics into treatment is an efficacy suggestion, because the evidence cited in this argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. Additionally, he would have to provide more imformation regarding the effect of antibiotics and details of the study. Therefore, if the argument has included the given factors mentioned above, this argument could be more thorough and logically.
总体上感觉有点啰嗦，而且有点地方衔接的不是太好，多看看范文吧。不要怕雷同，范文上面的衔接咱们就是写一年也写不出来，既然我们写不出来，背出来也行啊！
还有算我孤陋了：well-presented什么意思的？

[ 本帖最后由 warboy 于 2008-7-21 21:34 编辑 ]

1001storyUID: 2516918

我也是在借用模版的，是全面展开的意思。:loveliness:

warboyUID: 2444492

哦这样啊，我还不知道呢，学习一下！

jacqueline-zhUID: 2518815

我感觉太模板了，如果你可以将模板使用在任何题目上最好，要不然觉得很牵强

warboyUID: 2444492

楼上你都是看什么模板的，这也叫模板化啊？
那你看一下我的，就知道什么是不用动脑了^_^
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-859996-1-1.html

小猪sisiUID: 2453484

The argument is well-presented, but not well-reasoned. By making a comparision of the first group of patients, taking antibiotics regularly in the treatment and therefore the recuperation time of them reduced a lot, with the second group of patients, given sugar pills in stead of antibiotics and consequently their recuperation time not significantly reduced ,the argument for advising all patients with muscle strain to use antibiotics as an effective treatment seems logical.（这句话长得有点夸张了）  However, the premise of the conclusion that the antibiotics is the only factor to prevent secondary infections implicated in the argument may be a poor one. A myriad of other factors, such as the use of the tincture of iodine, might just as likely be the cause of prevention of secondary infections. Without ruling out these factors, the author can not be justfiably conclude only by applying antibiotics can protecting patients from secondary infections.（这个做最后一段是不是好点呢？）
  The author's suggestion depending on the study of the two groups are not reliable to infer the results generally. First, as lacking the information about the absolute number of the patients for the two groups, it is impossible to assess the validity of the results by a vague statistics. If the number of person participating within the study is just only two or three of each group,  who can verify the result from this study. Secondly, the number of samples, in itself, does not ensure the representativeness and randomness.  At the same time, the arguer is falling to consider the possible differences of patients among the two groups in this research. Such differences may include the fact that there are more elderly, children, or  peolpe having a weak constitution in the first group. While there are more younger and adults who excerise in their daily life before injured. In addition, the author has ignored detecting the distinction of doctors who specialize in deferent respects. Perhaps, Dr.Newland of the first one, specializing in sports medicine, may defeat general physician Dr.Alton,  who continues to use the traditional therapy, by applying some special treatment other than antibiotics, like adding the Physical Activity in regular therapy. Therefore, unless the arguer can reasonably exclude these factors, the study would not doubt suggest the anbiotics do play a crucial role in the reduction of recuperation time from such study.（他的实验室实在是有太多的问题，都写得话估计写都写不完，我觉得要有重点地论述，小错误就不用花太多笔墨了）  Although the study can provide sufficient evidences to account for the efficacy ofantibiotics in this tentative research, equating the preliminary results of a study with final evidence is at stake, and giving advice depending on this unreliable theory is dangerous to patients as well. Who can ensure that antibiotics are totally unharmful in the future? It is possible that using antibiotics in regular therapy may bring specimens of research harmful by-products, such as killing helpful flora of us and producing antibody of biotics, which will impede the futher treatment. If so, the antibiotics may not only reduce the recovery time but also intimidate the health of us over a long time. Even if the antibiotics is useful and safe for the group in the study for a long term, the author may not enlarge the scope of patients from the group to all patients with muscle strain. Because we can not set some exceptions apart form the universality. Taking pregnant women as an example, the application of antibiotics may cause some belights for children. Based on these assumptions, the arguer could not come to a hasty declaration that we can take antibiotics as part of treatment.  To sum up, the author fails to strengthen his claim that taking antibiotics into treatment is an efficacy suggestion, because the evidence cited in this argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. Additionally, he would have to provide more imformation regarding the effect of antibiotics and details of the study. Therefore, if the argument has included the given factors mentioned above, this argument could be more thorough and logically.确实模版的印记太明显，段内衔接的不是很好，加油！！！

thepopdjUID: 2517220

感觉你的issue写的很好，可是argument有点问题，你可以多去看看范文，我就是从看范文开始的

第一段过多的复述了题目，感觉考官不是很喜欢首段完全复述题目的文章

正文感觉条理也有点乱（也许是我的水平不够），可以学习一下范文里句子之间的衔接，我都是在每段前加上first second third finally什么的来指出题目的错误的（个人习惯）

在2段里说试验的错误的时候太过罗嗦了，没有必要每条都写，抓住最有攻击性的写，其他的可以略提一下，然后就马上转下一段写别的错误是不是会好点

加油加油

disyooUID: 2223964

我觉得也是有点罗嗦的感觉
缺少些逻辑推导的关键词 一方面是自己的逻辑路线 一方面是让步的

还有就是讨论一下 第一段驳斥memo的结论好么？我一般都是放在最后驳斥的……

jc334519UID: 2499217

汗，这就是范文里的。。。