Argument51 【米国有米】小组 第三次作业

bluecathyUID: 2231215

Argu51 [米国有米]第二次作业
作者：bluecathy

题目："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."

提纲：
1.结论的前提可疑，病人肌肉扭伤后发生感染的几率有多大，论证者并没有提供。而且，关于二次感染和抗生素的服用的两组实验是在医生对患有严重肌肉拉伤的患者的怀疑之上，也许并不能推广到所有诊断为肌肉损伤的患者的治疗中。
2.结论太过武断，仅仅因为第一组与第二组的康复速度不同，就将这种差别归因于抗生素的作用，过于武断。如题所述，两组指导医生的背景不同就可能会使这两组的具体恢复手段不同，可能会导致实验结果的不同。
3.结论的论据也并不具有说服力。除了已表明的不同背景的医生，作者并为给我们提供两个实验组的成员在性别、年龄、生理特征、受伤程度上的信息，于是我们无从得知这些与恢复有着密切关系的因素在这两组成员不同速度的康复中到底发挥了多大的作用。

正文：
At first glance, the arguer's reasoning seems to be sound and convictive. According to his conclusion, through the treatment between two groups of patients who suffer from muscle strain, the doctors get the conclusion that taking antibiotics as a part of the treatment will make the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain get recuperation quicker. But unfortunately, if we make a consideration of the evidence, doubt will be cast on this conclusion and apprehension will be heaped on the doctors' suggestion.

First of all, the premise of this conclusion is doubtful. The result of the study conducted by the doctors is neither convincing nor relevant. It only implies that the using of the antibiotics could keep patients who have muscle strain form secondary infections, while it doesn’t necessarily means that all the patients who suffer from muscle strain must have secondary infections. How many of the whole patients could get secondary infections? The arguer fails to offer the probability, so the conclusion of spreading this way of treatment to every single patients diagnosing with muscle strain is lack of comprehensive consideration. Meanwhile, the treatment on taking antibiotics and secondary infections of these two groups is based on the suspicion of the patients who suffer from muscle strain severely, maybe couldn't be recommended to all the patients who just have muscle strain as the conclusion says.

Secondly, the arguer attributes the key treatment step to using of antibiotics only because of the difference of recuperation time between the first group and the second. It is an arbitrary conclusion to some extent. According to the process of treatment mentioned above, the doctors of these two groups have different specialty background, one specializes in sports medicine whose group has quicker recuperation, while the other is a general physician whose group doesn't have a significant achievement. May the different doctors draw up two different treatment plans, and the different treatment plans result in the different ending. It is assumed without justification that treatments have remained the same at different conditions.

Further more, the evidence which resulted in the arguer's conclusion is not convincing. Despite that two doctors with different specialty background have indicated, the arguer also fails to offer the information of the members on gender, age, physiology characteristic, and injury degree in two different groups, which have the compact relationship with the recuperation time. So if the physical condition of the patients in one group is not as same as the other group's, we couldn't estimate how much the physical factors contribute to the two distinct results.

To sum up, after pointing out the obvious flaws in the argument, we could say that the reasons used to support the conclusion cannot be relied on. Before any real treatment actions are taken to all the patients with muscle strain, the arguer has to better his study and offer more detailed information about the patients' physical conditions, to testify that taking antibiotics will accelerate patients' recuperation in the circumstances of the same doctor, same symptom, same patients' physical condition, and same treatment plan.

[ 本帖最后由 bluecathy 于 2006-11-30 12:05 编辑 ]

laner023UID: 2223653

At first glance, the arguer's reasoning seems to be sound and convictive. According to his conclusion, through the treatment between two groups of patients who suffer from muscle strain, the doctors get the conclusion that taking antibiotics as a part of the treatment will make the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain get recuperation quicker. But unfortunately, if we make a consideration of the evidence, doubt will be cast on this conclusion and apprehension will be heaped on the doctors' suggestion.

First of all, the premise of this conclusion is doubtful. The result of the study conducted by the doctors is neither convincing nor relevant. （前两句能不能并在一直，让人一下就知道你这段要批的错误是哪个。）It only implies that the using of the antibiotics could keep patients who have muscle strain form secondary infections, while it doesn’t necessarily means that all the patients who suffer from muscle strain must have secondary infections. How many of the whole patients could get secondary infections? The arguer fails to offer the probability, so the conclusion of spreading this way of treatment to every single patients diagnosing with muscle strain is lack of comprehensive consideration. Meanwhile, the treatment on taking antibiotics and secondary infections of these two groups is based on the suspicion of the patients who suffer from muscle strain severely, maybe couldn't be recommended to all the patients who just have muscle strain as the conclusion says.

Secondly, the arguer attributes the key treatment step to using of antibiotics only because of the difference of recuperation time between the first group and the second. It is an arbitrary conclusion to some extent. According to the process of treatment mentioned above, the doctors of these two groups have different specialty background, one specializes in sports medicine whose group has quicker recuperation, while the other is a general physician whose group doesn't have a significant achievement. May the different doctors draw up two different treatment plans, and the different treatment plans result in the different ending. It is assumed without justification that treatments have remained the same at different conditions. 这段就比较清楚了，先说错误，然后具体批驳

Further more, the evidence which resulted in the arguer's conclusion is not convincing. Despite that two doctors with different specialty background have indicated, the arguer also fails to offer the information of the members on gender, age, physiology characteristic, and injury degree in two different groups, which have the compact relationship with the recuperation time. So if the physical condition of the patients in one group is not as same as the other group's, we couldn't estimate how much the physical factors contribute to the two distinct results.
（这一段和第一段有同样的问题，感觉段首句太泛了，根本没直接指出具体的问题。你想啊，argument本来就是让我们挑错误的，像“作者的结论没有说服力一类的话就不用说了”——ETS当然知道他的结论没有说服力了，关键是要在段首就指出问题在哪。我看了6分范文后，觉得“具体”才能拿高分。呵呵，个人观点，还有待验证。）
To sum up, after pointing out the obvious flaws in the argument, we could say that the reasons used to support the conclusion cannot be relied on. Before any real treatment actions are taken to all the patients with muscle strain, the arguer has to better his study and offer more detailed information about the patients' physical conditions, to testify that taking antibiotics will accelerate patients' recuperation in the circumstances of the same doctor, same symptom, same patients' physical condition, and same treatment plan.

总的来说，错误都找出来了，内容也比较充实。就是第一、三段的段首句写得太泛了。建议在段首就指出这段要批的错误。
另外，bluecathy用了好多好复杂的句式，看得我眼花了乱，都有点晕了。

[ 本帖最后由 laner023 于 2006-12-2 19:48 编辑 ]

bluecathyUID: 2231215

哎，第一段和第三段的段首就只顾着按照中文提纲来写了。谢谢你！