Argument51【超越自我小组】第13次作业 (8.17)by 马

楚小柳UID: 2518724

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: 391          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-8-18 12:04:56

The argument is not cogent for convicting the fallacies that the arguer unfairly recommends muscle strain patients to take antibiotics on the basis of unfairly comparison between experimental group and controlling group without take into account the possible difference of the physical situation of these two groups of patients, and overlooking the other possible explanations for the quicker healing of infection.

In order to get correct and effective consequence from comparison, it is telling that other ``` of the experimental group should be similar to these factors in the controlling group. Nonetheless, we can obtain no accurate information on the original physical condition of the patients in these two groups. It is quite possible that the age, health condition, race are apparent different. Consider, if the patients in the experimental group in which the patients are provided with antibiotics regularly are mainly constituted with young people who are in their 30s, while in the controlling group, most patients are senile, the phenomena that the patients in the experimental group picked them up quickly is of little doubt. It may, in fact, be their healthier physical situation of themselves keeps them from the second infection and accelerates the healing process, rather than antibiotics they took. In light of this consideration, the whole fruit the arguer obtains is of little convincing power.

Even if I ignore the possible influence the discrepancy of patients' different physical condition would brought to the conclusion the arguer draws, the recommendation is further flawed for overlooking other possible factors which would also serve to the quicker healing of the patients in experimental group. As elicited by the arguer, the doctors in the two groups are specialized in different areas--that is, sports medicine and general physics, thus, it is totally possible Dr. Newland are more familiar with muscle injuries. As my experience informed me that the professional knowledge and specialized skill play a crucial role in determining the healing time and healing extent of the patients, perhaps it is the specialized knowledge of Dr. Newland on curing muscle injuries accelerate the process of healing. Without exclude the possible influence of doctors' different treatment level, the recommendation on taking antibiotics is untenable.

To sum up, the cause-and-effect analysis of taking antibiotics and quicker healing of patients' muscle injuries is not effective, and therefore the arguer fails to convince me.
这次是故意没有事先先分析题目的逻辑错误，所以时间不是很够，结果就只批了两个错误····汗

hermituforestUID: 2354296

The argument is not cogent for convicting the fallacies that the arguer unfairly recommends muscle strain patients to take antibiotics on the basis of unfairly comparison between experimental group and controlling group without take into account the possible difference of the physical situation of these two groups of patients, and overlooking the other possible explanations for the quicker healing of infection.

（你这一段整个是一句话，这样极容易造成错误，首先that引导的定语从句后面应该直接指出错误是什么，你写arguer unfairlyrecommends显得有些多余，and前后to take和overlooking显然是不一致的。在你不是能很纯熟的使用英文的时候，最好不要写这么长的句子，容易犯错误和造成误解，AW主要靠的是逻辑，要知道，短句子也是很厉害的。）


In order to get correct and effective consequence from comparison, it is telling that other ```（这个地方原来是什么？） of the experimental group should be similar to these factors in the controlling group. Nonetheless, we can obtain no accurate information on the original physical condition of the patients in these two groups.（这句话显得有些啰嗦了，完全可以和前面的用定语从句和代词重新整理一下~~） It is quite possible that the age, health condition, race are apparent different. Consider, if the patients in the experimental group in which the patients are provided with antibiotics regularly are mainly constituted with young people who are in their 30s, while in the controlling group, most patients are senile, the phenomena that the patients in the experimental group picked them up quickly is of little doubt. It may, in fact, be their healthier physical situation of themselves keeps them from the second infection and accelerates the healing process, rather than antibiotics they took（去掉）. In light of this consideration, the whole fruit the arguer obtains is of little convincing power.

Even if I（不要出现） ignore the possible influence the discrepancy of patients' different physical condition would brought to the conclusion the arguer draws, the recommendation is further flawed for overlooking other possible factors which would also serve to the quicker healing of the patients in experimental group. As elicited by the arguer, the doctors in the two groups are specialized in different areas--that is, sports medicine and general physics,（非常好~~） thus, it is totally possible Dr. Newland are more familiar with muscle injuries. As my experience informed me that the professional knowledge and specialized skill play a crucial role in determining the healing time and healing extent of the patients, perhaps it is the specialized knowledge of Dr. Newland on curing muscle injuries accelerate the process of healing. Without exclude the possible influence of doctors' different treatment level, the recommendation on taking antibiotics is untenable.

To sum up, the cause-and-effect analysis of taking antibiotics and quicker healing of patients' muscle injuries is not effective, and therefore the arguer fails to convince me.

首先，感觉你的文不错。。语言很好，只是不要刻意的把句子写长。
几点意见
1、开头结尾很好，如果说把那个大长句子在考虑下的话
2、中间两段指出了两个逻辑错误，同是针对的是那个实验，一个是实验的样本，另外的是医师的水平，但是我感觉你没有扣题，你要驳斥的不是论据，而是论点，就像是在辩论中，最重要的是观点，驳斥论据为的是最终驳倒对方的论点，你必须在每一次论证中最终归结到论点上，这样才能击垮整个argument。

apjackUID: 2381599

The argument is not cogent for convicting the fallacies that the arguer unfairly recommends muscle strain patients to take antibiotics on the basis of unfairly comparison between experimental group and controlling group without take into account the possible difference of the physical situation of these two groups of patients, and overlooking the other possible explanations for the quicker healing of infection.

In order to get correct and effective consequence from comparison, it is telling that other ``` of (delete: it is telling …) the experimental group should be similar to these factors in the controlling group. (Basically I understand your meaning, however I think you can rewrite it to a better expression.) Nonetheless, we can obtain no accurate information on the original physical condition of the patients in these two groups. It is quite possible that the age, health condition, race are apparent(ly) different. Consider, if the patients in the experimental group in which the patients are provided with antibiotics regularly are mainly constituted with young people who are in their 30s, while in the controlling group, most patients are senile, the phenomena that the patients in the experimental group picked them up quickly is of little doubt. It may, in fact, be their healthier physical situation of themselves keeps them from the second infection and accelerates the healing process, rather than antibiotics they took. In light of this consideration, the whole fruit the arguer obtains is of little convincing power. (If you have time, you should write it more accurate: which area/conclusion is weakened?)

Even if I (Even if that / Even ignoring) ignore the possible influence the discrepancy of patients' different physical condition would brought to the conclusion the arguer draws, the recommendation is further flawed for overlooking other possible factors which would also serve to the quicker healing of the patients in experimental group. As elicited by the arguer, the doctors in the two groups are specialized in different areas--that is, sports medicine and general physics, thus, it is totally possible Dr. Newland are more familiar with muscle injuries. As my experience informed me that the professional knowledge and specialized skill play a crucial role in determining the healing time and healing extent of the patients, perhaps it is the specialized knowledge of Dr. Newland on curing muscle injuries accelerate the process of healing. Without exclude the possible influence of doctors' different treatment level, the recommendation on taking antibiotics is untenable.

To sum up, the cause-and-effect analysis of taking antibiotics and quicker healing of patients' muscle injuries is not effective, and therefore the arguer fails to convince me.

Your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs criticize that antibiotics can impede the occurrence of 2nd infection which results in faster recuperation.
Your main problem is on the central context rather than introduction and conclusion.
In fact, I am confused that how to separate our challenges into 3 paragraphs. It seems that points are overlapped.

加油. 新來的伙伴.

[ 本帖最后由 apjack 于 2008-8-19 16:21 编辑 ]

doubtingthomasUID: 2529243

Argument51【超越自我小组】第13次作业 (8.17)by 马
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: 391          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-8-18 12:04:56

The argument is not cogent for convicting（去掉convicting） the fallacies that the arguer unfairly recommends muscle strain patients to take antibiotics on the basis of unfairly comparison between experimental group and controlling group without take into account the possible difference of the physical situation of these two groups of patients, and overlooking the（去the） other possible explanations for the quicker healing of infection.

In order to get correct and effective consequence from comparison, it is telling that （这个it is telling that诡异啊）other ``` of the experimental group should be similar to these factors in the controlling group. Nonetheless, we can obtain no accurate information on the original （这个original意思是？）physical condition of the patients in these two groups. It is quite possible that the age, health condition, race are apparent（去掉apparent） different. Consider, if the patients in the experimental group in which the patients are provided with antibiotics regularly are mainly constituted with young people who are in their 30s, while in the controlling group, most patients are senile, the phenomena that the patients in the experimental group picked them up quickly is of little doubt. （你觉得研究人员会犯这么幼稚的错误么？这样的错误太明显了。这种假设不是抬杠么，当然能削弱对方，但也显得自己掉价啊这样的削弱不是很有力，不如说可能是这两组人住的地方不一样，一组在山区全都有某种病，这种病才是因素）It may, in fact, be their healthier physical situation of themselves keeps them from the second infection and accelerates the healing process, rather than antibiotics they took. In light of this consideration, the whole fruit the arguer obtains is of little convincing power.

Even if I ignore the possible influence the discrepancy of patients' different physical condition would brought to the conclusion the arguer draws, the recommendation is further flawed for overlooking other possible factors which would also serve to the quicker healing of the patients in experimental group. As elicited by the arguer, the doctors in the two groups are specialized in different areas--that is, sports medicine and general physics, thus, it is totally possible Dr. Newland are more familiar with muscle injuries. As my experience informed me that the professional knowledge and specialized skill play a crucial role in determining the healing time and healing extent of the patients, perhaps it is the specialized knowledge of Dr. Newland on curing muscle injuries accelerate the process of healing. Without exclude the possible influence of doctors' different treatment level, the recommendation on taking antibiotics is untenable.

To sum up, the cause-and-effect analysis of taking antibiotics and quicker healing of patients' muscle injuries is not effective, and therefore the arguer fails to convince me


lz语言很好句子都很顺，但是就找到了一个错误么？全文在用他因法攻击论据，再说可能antibiotics对这病没用，还有很多可以说的。攻击不全面的厉害啊。或者lz认为说得深入些，会比到处都点要好？Lz注意到了就

[ 本帖最后由 doubtingthomas 于 2008-8-21 20:56 编辑 ]