argument51 BAXIA作业

ddloveyyUID: 2225606

这是以前写的文,BAXIA组改员直接批6楼我自己修改过的,谢了.


这是偶的第一篇阿狗，大虾们不吝赐教啊，先谢下onlyear JJ

Argument 51
“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.”


The argument is not cogent because it is based on a result of an incredible experiment. The newsletter recommends that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics for quicker recovery. However, the way of experiment is doubtful in such respects below.

First, the arguer overlooks the difference between the persons in two groups besides their different medicine taking. Obviously, the extent of hurt and the constitution of patients and other factors of patients just as the age and job or history of muscle disease are relative to the curing time. If the patients in first groups are younger athletes but the patients in second group are elder workers and suffering hard work for a long time, the condition of recovery is definitely different. Furthermore, we hardly know how many patients contained in each group, which also let the argument unconvincing. For example, there is just one person in first group and due to his good physical condition or other accident factor his curing time is shorter than others. It is possible. However, the arguer fails to account for these possibilities, which let the argument lost its representativeness.

Second, even if the conditions of patients in two groups are similar generally, the arguer overlooks the role that the two patients play. The curing ways, experience and level of an expert in support medicine and a generally physician is different, which lead to the different curing effect. Maybe the doctors in first group has more experience on muscle strain or the have more credibility in patients’ opinion. It is possible that his/her patients would recover faster. Without the concern about the different doctors’ influence on patients, the quicker time of first group means little.

Third, even if all these conditions above are the same, the different results of two groups cannot manifest the influential factor is secondary infection. Though antibiotics has remarkable effect on curing infection, but we cannot draw a conclusion that the patients in first group recover faster just because the antibiotics keep the patients from being infected, since we do not know the patients in second group have been infected because of not taking antibiotics. It is entirely possible that antibiotics have other effect on these patients besides curing infection. Lacking the evidence that antibiotics make the recovery fast by curing secondary infection, we can hardly believe the arguer’s recommendation.

Finally, even if the result of experiment reveals that antibiotics make the curing time shorter, the arguer cannot make the conclusion that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics, because the experiment only reveals antibiotics are effective to these patients in first group. Perhaps some people have resistance to antibiotics, or even may be allergic to antibiotics. Moreover, antibiotics may have side effect on body which may be not salutary. Without the concern about these probable problems, the arguer’ recommendation is still unwarranted.

Thus, although the experiment shows the quicker time of the antibiotics-takers recovery, it is unconvincing to support the final conclusion that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics.

[ 本帖最后由 ddloveyy 于 2006-10-14 14:54 编辑 ]

junuyliaUID: 203675

[总体来说，写得不错，论点明确，分析透彻]
[注意一下细小的语法错误，（没有全部标明），不要因为这些小毛病让一篇本来写得很好的文章黯然]
[作为楼主的第一篇argu，我觉得写得很不错了，楼主只需要在语言表达上多下些功夫，减少语法错误，把要说的话表达准确就够了]

[一家之言，难免有不妥，希望共同进步 :-) ]



[首段最好提一下题目的结论或观点]
The argument is not cogent because it is based on a result of an incredible experiment. The newsletter recommends that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics for quicker recovery. However, the way of experiment is doubtful in such respects below.

First, the arguer overlooks the difference between the persons in two groups besides their different medicine taking. Obviously, the extent of hurt and the constitution of patients and other factors of patients just[such?] as the age and job or history of muscle disease are relative to the curing time. If the patients in first groups are younger athletes but the patients in second group are elder workers and suffering hard work for a long time, the condition of recovery is definitely different. Furthermore, we hardly know how many patients contained in each group, which also let the argument unconvincing. For example, there is just one person in first group and due to his good physical condition or other accident factor his curing time is shorter than others. It is possible. However, the arguer fails to account for these possibilities, which let the argument lost[lose] its representativeness.

Second, even if the conditions of patients in two groups are similar generally, the arguer overlooks the role that the two patients play. The curing ways, experience and level of an expert in support medicine and a generally physician is different, which lead to the different curing effect. Maybe the doctors in first group has more experience on muscle strain or the have more credibility in patients’ opinion. It is possible that his/her patients would recover faster. Without the concern about the different doctors’ influence on patients, the quicker time of first group means little.

Third, even if all these conditions above are the same, the different results of two groups cannot manifest the influential factor is secondary infection. Though antibiotics has remarkable effect on curing infection, but[though和but不能同时使用] we cannot draw a conclusion that the patients in first group recover faster just because the antibiotics keep the patients from being infected, since we do not know the patients in second group have been infected because of not taking antibiotics. It is entirely possible that antibiotics have other effect on these patients besides curing infection. Lacking the evidence that antibiotics make the recovery fast by curing secondary infection, we can hardly believe the arguer’s recommendation.

Finally, even if the result of experiment reveals that antibiotics make the curing time shorter, the arguer cannot make the conclusion that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics, because the experiment only reveals antibiotics are effective to these patients in first group. Perhaps some people have resistance to antibiotics, or even may be allergic to antibiotics. Moreover, antibiotics may have side effect on body which may be not salutary. Without the concern about these probable problems, the arguer’ recommendation is still unwarranted.

Thus, although the experiment shows the quicker time of the antibiotics-takers recovery, it is unconvincing to support the final conclusion that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics.

ddloveyyUID: 2225606

与前辈讨论下开头的问题，自己看北美，觉得那样的开头很省时省力，昨天看下阿狗的精华区，大寒！！手上没有官方范文，一下不知怎么写了．大家指导一下哈

chengnicoleUID: 2216897

The argument is not cogent because it is based on a result of an incredible (难以置信的？unconvincing)experiment. The newsletter recommends that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics for quicker recovery. However, the way of experiment is doubtful in such respects below.

First, the arguer overlooks the difference between the persons in two groups besides their different medicine taking. Obviously, the extent of hurt and the constitution of patients and other factors of patients just as the age and job or history of muscle disease are relative to the curing time. If the patients in first groups are younger athletes but the patients in second group are elder workers and suffering hard work for a long time, the condition of recovery is definitely different. Furthermore, we hardly know how many patients contained in each group, which also let the argument unconvincing. For example, there is just one person in first group and due to his good physical condition or other accident factor his curing time is shorter than others. It is possible. However, the arguer fails to account for these possibilities, which let the argument lost its representativeness.

Second, even if the conditions of patients in two groups are similar generally (in general?), the arguer overlooks the role that the two patients(? two groups of patients) play. The curing ways, experience and level of an expert in support medicine (sports medicine？Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine) and a generally physician is different, which lead to the different curing effect. Maybe the doctors in first group has more experience on muscle strain or the have more credibility in patients’ opinions. It is possible that his/her patients would recover faster. Without the concern about the different doctors’ influence on patients, the quicker time of first group means little.

Third, even if all these conditions above are the same, the different results of two groups cannot manifest the influential factor is secondary infection. Though antibiotics has remarkable effect on curing infection, but we cannot draw a conclusion that the patients in first group recover faster just because the antibiotics keep the patients from being infected, since we do not know the patients in second group have been infected because of not taking antibiotics. It is entirely (highly) possible that antibiotics have other effect on these patients besides curing infection. Lacking the evidence that antibiotics make the recovery fast(faster) by curing secondary infection, we can hardly believe the arguer’s recommendation.

Finally, even if the result of experiment reveals that antibiotics make the curing time shorter, the arguer cannot make the conclusion that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics, because the experiment only reveals antibiotics are effective to these patients in first group. Perhaps some people have resistance to antibiotics, or even may be allergic to antibiotics. Moreover, antibiotics may have side effect on body which may be not salutary. Without the concern about these probable problems, the arguer’ recommendation is still unwarranted.

Thus, although the experiment shows the quicker time of the antibiotics-takers recovery, it is unconvincing to support the final conclusion that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics.

结构清晰，开头简洁，结尾再加一句建设性建议就更完善了
谢谢你之前帮我仔细修改作文，这是我的作文汇总，请指教。
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-487337-1-1.html


[ 本帖最后由 chengnicole 于 2006-7-8 22:28 编辑 ]

onlyearUID: 190228

The argument is not cogent because it is based on a result of an incredible(unconvincing） experiment. The newsletter recommends that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics for quicker recovery. However, the way of experiment is doubtful in such respects below.

First, the arguer overlooks the difference between the persons in two groups besides their different medicine taking. Obviously, the extent of hurt and the constitution of patients and other factors of patients justsuch as the age and job or history of muscle disease are relative(related) to the curing time. If the patients in first groups are younger athletes but（这里用while比较常用，but好像变扭） the patients in second group are elder workers and suffering hard work for a long time, the condition of recovery is definitely different. Furthermore, we hardly know how many patients contained（contains） in each group, which also let the argument unconvincing. For example there is just one person in first group and due to his good physical condition or other accident factor his curing time is shorter than others. It is possible. （it is possible that there is only one patient in the first group and his good physical condition or other accidental factors guaranteed his quicker recovery ）However, the arguer fails to account for these possibilities, which let the argument lost its representativeness. （word不认这个字。。。representative position是不是好点）

Second, even if the conditions of patients in the two groups are similar generally, the arguer overlooks the role that the two patients play.（这句话没听懂，而且应该是two group of patients不是two patients） The curing ways, experience and level of an expert in support medicine and a generally physician is（are） different, which lead to the different curing effect. Maybe the doctors in first group has more experience on muscle strain or the have more credibility in patients’ opinion. It is possible that his/her patients would recover faster because of these factors . Without the concern about the different doctors’ influence on patients, the quicker time of first group means little.(这句也没看懂为什么要放在这段最后。也许是我理解错误，是说除开医生个人因素，第一组更快的治疗时间没有意义？）

Third, even if all these conditions above are the same, the different results of two groups cannot manifest the influential factor is secondary infection. Though antibiotics has remarkable effect on curing infection, but we cannot draw a conclusion that the patients in first group recover faster just because the antibiotics keep the patients from being infected, since we do not know the patients in second group have been infected because of not taking antibiotics. It is entirely possible that antibiotics have other effect on these patients besides curing infection . Lacking the evidence that antibiotics make the recovery fast by curing secondary infection, we can hardly believe the arguer’s recommendation.（这一段不错，鸡蛋里挑骨头的话，应该用词丰富点，不要总是用because，infected。不过写着写着就是会脑子空白想不到新表达法，me也是经常如此）
Finally, even if the result of experiment reveals that antibiotics make the curing time shorter, the arguer cannot make the conclusion that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics, because the experiment only reveals antibiotics are effective to these patients in first group. Perhaps some people have resistance to antibiotics, or even may be allergic to antibiotics. Moreover, antibiotics may have side effect on body which may be not salutary副作用自然不是salutary的，有点重复. Without the concern about these probable problems, the arguer’ recommendation is still（这里用still 感觉还没讲完好像这句成了下一段的开头，去掉的话感觉就是结尾了） unwarranted.

Thus, although the experiment shows the quicker time of the antibiotics-takers recovery, it is unconvincing to support the final conclusion that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics.

作为第一篇写得很好了。我发现我们有个共同缺点，就是挑出了逻辑错误，但是在攻击的时候逻辑感又不强，只是在罗列他的错误，但是没有有力多层次的反驳，这个就是范文与偶们习作的差距啊~~~~共勉共勉

ddloveyyUID: 2225606

这是自己修改过的, BAXIA组成员来拍吧, 先谢下.

The argument is not cogent because it is based on a result of an unconvincing experiment. The newsletter recommends that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics for quicker recovery. However, the way of experiment is doubtful in such respects below.

First, the arguer overlooks the differences between the persons in two groups besides their different medicine taking. Obviously, the extent of hurt and the condition of patients, such as the age and job or history of muscle disease, relate to the curing time. If the patients in first groups are younger athletes while the patients in second group are elder workers and suffering hard work for a long time, the condition of recovery is definitely different. Furthermore, we hardly know how many patients are contained in each group, which also leads the argument unconvincing. For example, if there is just one person in first group and due to his good physical condition or other accident factor, his curing time may be shorter than others in second group. However, the arguer fails to account for these possibilities, which lets the argument lost its representativeness.

Second, even if the conditions of patients in two groups are similar in general, the arguer overlooks the role that the two doctors play. As is known, there are numerous differences between the curing methods, experiences and medical skills of an expert in support medicine and these ones of a general physician, and these differences may cause the different curing effects. Maybe the doctors in first group has more experience on muscle strain or the have more credibility in patients’ opinion, thus it is possible that his/her patients would recover faster. Without the concern about the different influences on patients brought by different doctors, the quicker time of first group means little to justify the function of antibiotics.

Third, even if all these conditions above are the same, the different results of two groups cannot manifest the influential factor is secondary infection. Though antibiotics has remarkable effect on curing infection, but we do not know whether the patients in groups have the possibility to get infected. That is to say, we cannot draw a conclusion that the patients in first group recover faster just because the antibiotics keeps the patients from being infected, since we do not know the patients in second group have been infected because of not taking antibiotics. It is entirely possible that antibiotics has other effect on patients besides curing infection which lead to different results of two groups directly or indirectly. Lacking of the evidence that antibiotics makes the recovery fast by curing secondary infection, we can hardly believe that it is secondary infection which keeps the patients with muscle strain from healing quickly, let alone the recommendation of taking antibiotics.

Finally, even if the result of experiment reveals that antibiotics cause the curing time shorter, the arguer cannot make the conclusion that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics, because the experiment only reveals antibiotics is effective to these patients in first group. Perhaps some people have resistance to antibiotics, or even may be allergic to antibiotics. Moreover, antibiotics may have side effect on body which may be not salutary or even dangerous to patients. Without considering these probable problems, the arguer’ recommendation is still open to doubt.

Thus, although the experiment shows the quicker time of the antibiotics-takers recovery, it is unconvincing to support the recommendation that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics. Before a final conclusion, the arguer should pay more attention to these possible conditions mentioned above. After all, a hasty recommendation on medisine taking would do harm to patients' health.

[ 本帖最后由 ddloveyy 于 2006-10-14 14:48 编辑 ]