[9.28] 第一次作业 Argument 51

Luise8891UID: 2906459

In this argument,the arguer concludes that in order to prevent secondary infections,all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics.To substantiate his conclusion,a clinical study has been done to show the diference in the recuperation time of muscle strain that antibiotics can make .But there are some fallacies in the line of reasoning.
In the first place,the hypothesis that secondary infections might lead to longer healing time of muscle strain, has been proved by insufficient preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. First,since the two groups of patients received different treatments from two different doctors in two different major fields,then the conclusion drawn from the results may not sound convincing for the antibiotic is not the only virable.Maybe Dr. Newland ,who is a specialist of sports, paid more attention to the sports function of patients and gave a prescripion which heals muscle strain quickly ,while Dr. Alton,who is a general physician ,would probably
more emphasize the overall condition of the patients ,like the vital signs,the other possible clinical complications rather than the recuperation time of a certain part of the body.It's highly likely that it's the special treatment they receive other than the antibiotics that reduce the recuperation time.Then,the arguer fails to provide adequate information of patients in the study.How many patients are invovled ?Do the two group of patients have the same level of
severity of muscle strain?What about the average age of the patients?Because based on common sense,children could heal much more quickly than elders,especially old people.Moreover,the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that some of the patiens receive other treatment,such as antihypertensive drugs,hypoglycemic drugs,or immunosuppressor,which might elongate or shorten the rcuperation time. To fully substantiate the conclusion,the arguer must provide evidence to prove that the treatment the patients receive and the conditon of patients are the same,including the same level of severity of muscle strain,the approximate average age.And also ,the possibility that some of the patients received other treatment during the study should be ruled out.
In the second place,even if antibiotics do can significantly reduce the recuperation time,it is a little too hasty to conclude that all patients with muscle strain
necessarily need to take antibiotics.First of all,some of the patients might not suffer from secondary infection.Then,there are some patients
who might be allergic to certain kind of antibiotics.And also,regular using of antibiotic might lead to the resistence of bacterium to the antibiotics,which might causu more serious infection.Finally,for special group of
patients,like pregnant women ,the antibiotics are highly forbiddened ,for the antibiotics might contribute to the gene mutation of a baby ,or some congenital deficiency, even abortion of a baby.
In sum, this argument is not well reasoned.To make this conclusion sound more convincing,more details and explanation about the study should provided to ensure that there is only one variable in the study.And also,it would be more convincing,if evidence has been given to prove that antibiotics are one hundred percent safe for all people.

ydycgwllUID: 2894737

Rad-语法词法问题
Blue-好词好句
Pink-不理解的地方
Green-小结
Orange-建议

In this argument,the arguer concludes that in order to prevent secondary infections,all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics.To substantiate his conclusion,a clinical study has been done to show the diference in the recuperation time of muscle strain that antibiotics can make .But there are some fallacies in the line of reasoning.
自叙题目论点及论据，并提出在逻辑方面存在几处谬误

In the first place,the hypothesis that secondary infections might lead to longer healing time of muscle strain, has been proved by insufficient preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. First,since the two groups of patients received different treatments from two different doctors in two different major fields. Then, the conclusion drawn—》drew(draw-drew-drawn) from the results may not sound convincing for—》that(后面是从句，for改为that，并且convince后面搭配的介词是of不是for) the antibiotic is not the only virable.Maybe Dr. Newland ,who is a specialist of sports, paid more attention to the sports function of patients and gave a prescripion which heals muscle strain quickly ,while Dr. Alton,who is a general physician ,would probably
more emphasize the overall condition of the patients ,like the vital signs,the other possible clinical complications rather than the recuperation time of a certain part of the body.It's highly likely that it's the special treatment they receive other than the antibiotics that reduce the recuperation time.Then—》Last but not least（then重复）,the arguer fails to provide adequate information of patients in the study.How many patients are invovled ?Do the two group of patients have the same level of severity of muscle strain?What about the average age of the patients?Because based on common sense,children could heal much more quickly than elders,especially old people.Moreover,the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that some of the patiens receive other treatment,such as antihypertensive drugs,hypoglycemic drugs,or immunosuppressor,which might elongate or shorten the rcuperation time. To fully substantiate the conclusion,the arguer must provide evidence to prove that the treatment the patients receive and the conditon of patients are the same,including the same level of severity of muscle strain,the approximate average age.And also ,the possibility that some of the patients received other treatment during the study should be ruled out.
提出几点论据的漏洞：a两组的医生不同以致各自就诊时出发点不同；治疗过程不同导致差别而不是抗生素引起
                                        b两组实验对象存在许多不同因素，文中以反问的形式详细列出
In the second place,even if （让步很和谐同时承接了上文）antibiotics do can significantly reduce the recuperation time,it is a little too hasty to conclude that all patients with muscle strain necessarily need to take antibiotics.First of all,some of the patients might not suffer from secondary infection.Then,there are some patients  who might be allergic to certain kind of antibiotics.And also,regular using of antibiotic might lead to the resistence of bacterium to the antibiotics,which might causu more serious infection（抗生素会导致过敏但是否会引起伤口感染...？）.Finally,for special group of patients,like pregnant women ,the antibiotics are highly forbiddened ,for the antibiotics might contribute to the gene mutation of a baby ,or some congenital deficiency, even abortion of a baby.
让步肯定抗生素的作用但又质疑原题暗含的其它假设：a不是所有的人都会感染；b抗生素的副作用；c抗生素还可能导致严重后果

In sum, this argument is not well reasoned.To make this conclusion sound more convincing,more details ，explanation about the study should be provided（被动语态前be动词） to ensure that there is only one variable in the study.And also,it would be more convincing if evidence has been given to prove that antibiotics are one hundred percent safe for all people（个人认为这个假设是不大可能成立的，因为总有人会不适应抗生素）
总结：实验应该在尽量只有一个变因的条件下进行才有说服力


总体而言，语言上的一个突出亮点是插入语，同位语使用自然；
个人认为在逻辑思路上第三段是亮点，一个让步后开始釜底抽薪，之后层层递进

Luise8891UID: 2906459

In this argument, the arguer concludes that in order to prevent secondary infections,all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics.  To substantiate his conclusion, he cites a clinical study which seemingly shows the diference in the recuperation time of muscle strain that antibiotics can make .  But there are some fallacies in the line of reasoning.

In the first place, the hypothesis that secondary infections might lead to longer healing time of muscle strain, has been proved by insufficient preliminary results of a study.  First, since the two groups of patients received different treatments from two doctors in two different major fields,  the conclusion drawn from the results may not sound convincing for the antibiotics are not the only virable in the study.  Maybe Dr. Newland , who is a specialist of sports, paid more attention to the sports function of patients and gave a prescripion which heals muscle strain more quickly, while Dr. Alton, who is a general physician , would probably more emphasize the overall condition of the patients, such as the vital signs, the other possible clinical complications rather than the recuperation time of a certain part of the body.  It's highly likely that it's the special treatment they receive other than the antibiotics that leads to the sharp decrease of recuperation time. Secondly, the arguer fails to provide adequate information of patients in the study.  How many patients are invovled ?  Do the two groups of patients have the same level of severity of muscle strain?  What about the average age of the patients?  Because based on common sense, children could heal much more quickly than elders, especially old people.  Moreover, the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that some of the patiens receive other treatment, such as antihypertensive drugs, hypoglycemic drugs, or immunosuppressor, which might elongate or shorten the rcuperation time.  To fully validate the conclusion, the arguer must provide evidence to prove that the treatment that the patients receive and the conditon of patients are the same, including the same level of severity of muscle strain,the approximate average age.  And also ,the possibility that some of the patients received other treatment during the study should be ruled out.

In the second place,even if antibiotics do can significantly reduce the recuperation time, it is a little too hasty to conclude that all patients with muscle strain necessarily need to take antibiotics. First of all, some of the patients might not suffer from secondary infection.  Then, there are some patients  who might be allergic to certain kind of antibiotics.  And also, regular using of antibiotic might lead to the resistence of bacterium to the antibiotics, which might cause hard control of secondary infection.  Finally, for special group of patients, for instance pregnant women, the antibiotics are highly forbiddened, for the antibiotics might contribute to the gene mutation of a baby ,or some congenital deficiency, even abortion of a baby.

In sum, this argument is not well reasoned.  To make this conclusion sound more convincing,more details, explanation about the study should be provided to ensure only one variable in the study, namely antibiotics.  Furthermore, it would be more cogent if evidence has been given to prove that antibiotics are one hundred percent safe for all people.

tingsnowyUID: 2739192

In this argument, the arguer concludes that in order to prevent secondary infections(infection作“传染”时, 只有当“传染病”时[c]), all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics.  To substantiate his conclusion, he(he/she) cites a clinical study which seemingly shows the diference(difference) in the recuperation time of muscle strain that antibiotics can make . But there are some fallacies in the line of reasoning.



In the first place, the hypothesis that secondary infections might lead to longer healing time of muscle strain, has been proved by insufficient preliminary results of a study.  First, since the two groups of patients received different treatments from two doctors in two different major fields,  the conclusion drawn from the results may not sound convincing for the antibiotics are not the only virable(variable) in the study.  Maybe Dr. Newland , who is a specialist of sports, paid more attention to the sports function of patients and gave a prescripion(prescription) which heals muscle strain more quickly, while Dr. Alton, who is a general physician , would probably more emphasize the overall condition of the patients, such as the vital signs, the other possible clinical complications rather than the recuperation time of a certain part of the body.  It's highly likely that it's the special treatment they receive other than the antibiotics that leads to the sharp decrease of recuperation time. Secondly, the arguer fails to provide adequate information of patients in the study.  How many patients are invovled(involved) ?  Do the two groups of patients have the same level of severity of muscle strain?  What about the average age of the patients?  Because based on common sense, children could heal much more quickly than elders, especially old people.  Moreover, the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that some of the patiens(patients) receive other treatment, such as antihypertensive drugs, hypoglycemic drugs, or immunosuppressor, which might elongate or shorten the rcuperation(recuperation) time. To fully validate the conclusion, the arguer must provide evidence to prove that the treatment that the patients receive and the conditon(condition) of patients are the same, including the same level of severity of muscle strain, the approximate average age.  And also ,the possibility that some of the patients received other treatment during the study should be ruled out.
(重点讲了study的问题，条理很清楚。)


In the second place, even if antibiotics do can significantly reduce the recuperation time, it is a little too hasty to conclude that all patients with muscle strain necessarily need to take antibiotics. First of all, some of the patients might not suffer from secondary infection.  Then, there are some patients  who might be allergic to certain kind of antibiotics.  And also, regular using of antibiotic might lead to the resistence of bacterium to the antibiotics, which might cause hard control of secondary infection.  Finally, for special group of patients, for instance pregnant women, the antibiotics are highly forbiddened, for the antibiotics might contribute to the gene mutation of a baby ,or some congenital deficiency, even abortion of a baby.

In sum, this argument is not well reasoned.  To make this conclusion sound more convincing, more details, explanation about the study should be provided to ensure only one variable in the study, namely antibiotics.  Furthermore, it would be more cogent if evidence has been given to prove that antibiotics are one hundred percent safe for all people.


(文章条理清楚，重点讲了study的问题和结论可行性的问题，有些拼写上的错误应该注意。)