彼岸小组6号习作

fish_snowUID: 2822442

In this newsletter, the speaker recommends that antibiotics are supposed to take as part of all patients' treatment who are diagnosed with muscle strain. To justify the recommendation, the arguer notes a comparison between two groups of patients, for one are treated by Dr. Newland specialized in sports medicine and given antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment, for the other group of patients given sugar pills and treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician. Careful examination of these supporting evidence, however, reveals that lends little credible supporting to his claim.

To begin with, A threshold assumption upon which the recommendation relies is that all the patients suffered severe muscle strain will get secondary infection for sure is unwarranted. It is not all the patients but part of them may infect twice after the severe muscle strain. If the arguer’s precondition is unsounded, how can we be convinced by his or her conclusion deduced from this precondition? Thus, the arguer’s recommendation that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment is open to doubt.

what’ s more, the arguer fails to take the inherent difference between the two doctors into account. It is entirely possibly that it is the Dr. Newland’s more excellent skills and richer experience rather than patients taking antibiotics that are responsible for the better medical result. Lacking evidence that the difference of doctors will not influence the result, the arguer’s recommendation that all patients suffering the muscle strain should take antibiotic is unjustified.

Further more, the arguer overlooks other factors that contribute to the patients in the second group recuperate quickly. Perhaps the patients in the first group are younger or perhaps they are in better physical condition than whom in the second group, thus sustain the muscle strain better. In order to properly conclude that all the patients suffering the severe muscle strain should take antibiotic as part of their treatment, the arguer must rule out all other feasible explanation for the disparity.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out that the arguer fails to consider other situations occurring after taking the antibiotics. For example, some people may be allergic to the antibiotics. What is more, Resistance to the antibiotics may also generate with the drug overdose. In those occasions, patients are not advised take antibiotics, which render the arguer’s recommendation skeptical.

To sum up, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis dose not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer must show the percentage of people may infect after muscle strain. Also the arguer must take medical skills of both doctors into account. To better assess the conclusion, we would need more information about other factors contributed to the recuperation slowly, and more information about the allergic history and drug resistance of patients.

melody-quUID: 2970250

In this newsletter, the speaker recommends that antibiotics are supposed to take(be taken) as part of all patients' treatment who are diagnosed with muscle strain. To justify the recommendation, the arguer notes a comparison between two groups of patients, for one are treated by Dr. Newland specialized in sports medicine and given antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment, for the other group of patients given sugar pills and treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician.（两个for和后面的given感觉语法有点问题。。。） Careful examination of these（the,证据不可数）
supporting evidence, however, reveals that (加it) lends little credible supporting to his claim.

To begin with, A threshold assumption upon which the recommendation relies is that all the patients suffered severe muscle strain will get secondary infection for sure is unwarranted. It is not all the patients but part of them may infect twice after the severe muscle strain. If the arguer’s precondition is unsounded, how can we be convinced by his or her conclusion deduced from this precondition? Thus, the arguer’s recommendation that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment is open to doubt.

What’ s more, the arguer fails to take the inherent difference between the two doctors into account. It is entirely possibly（possible） that it is the Dr. Newland’s more excellent skills and richer experience rather than patients taking antibiotics that are responsible for the better medical result. Lacking evidence that the difference of doctors will not influence the result, the arguer’s recommendation that all patients suffering the muscle strain should take antibiotic is unjustified.

Further more, the arguer overlooks other factors that contribute to the patients in the second group recuperate(recuperating) quickly. Perhaps the patients in the first group are younger or perhaps they are in better physical condition than whom in the second group, thus sustain the muscle strain better. In order to properly conclude that all the patients suffering the severe muscle strain should take antibiotic as part of their treatment, the arguer must rule out all other feasible explanation for the disparity.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out that the arguer fails to consider other situations occurring after taking the antibiotics. For example, some people may be allergic to the antibiotics. What is more, Resistance to the antibiotics may also generate with the drug overdose. In those occasions, patients are not advised take antibiotics, which render the arguer’s recommendation skeptical.

To sum up, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis dose not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer must show the percentage of people may infect after muscle strain. Also the arguer must take medical skills of both doctors into account. To better assess the conclusion, we would need more information about other factors contributed to the recuperation slowly(contributing to the slow recuperation), and more information about the allergic history and drug resistance of patients.

muzhihao1UID: 2959675

In this newsletter, the speaker recommends that antibiotics are supposed to take as part of all patients' treatment who are diagnosed with muscle strain. To justify the recommendation, the arguer notes a comparison between two groups of patients, for one are treated by Dr. Newland specialized in sports medicine and given antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment, for the other group of patients given sugar pills and treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician.(感觉有点怪，我个人感觉应该用
one is...the other is...
) Careful examination of these supporting evidence, however, reveals that lends little credible supporting to his claim.

To begin with, A threshold assumption upon which the recommendation relies is that all the patients suffered severe muscle strain will get secondary infection for sure is unwarranted. It is not all the patients but part of them may infect twice after the severe muscle strain. If the arguer’s precondition is unsounded, how can we be convinced by his or her conclusion deduced from this precondition? Thus, the arguer’s recommendation that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment is open to doubt.

what’ s more, the arguer fails to take the inherent difference between the two doctors into account. It is entirely possibly that it is the Dr. Newland’s more excellent skills and richer experience rather than patients taking （
delete "patients taking"
）antibiotics that are responsible for the better medical result. Lacking evidence that the difference of doctors will not influence the result, the arguer’s recommendation that all patients suffering the muscle strain should take antibiotic is unjustified.（
医生的不同会影响结果不能直接得出用抗生素这个建议是错的。
）

Further more, the arguer overlooks other factors that contribute to the patients in the second group recuperate quickly. （
(the quick recovery/recuperation of the patients)
）Perhaps the patients in the first group are younger or perhaps they are in better physical condition than whom in the second group, thus sustain the muscle strain better. In order to properly conclude that all the patients suffering the severe muscle strain should take antibiotic as part of their treatment, the arguer must rule out all other feasible explanation for the disparity.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out that the arguer fails to consider other situations occurring after taking the antibiotics. For example, some people may be allergic to the antibiotics. What is more, Resistance to the antibiotics may also generate with the drug overdose. In those occasions, patients are not advised take antibiotics, which render the arguer’s recommendation skeptical.

To sum up, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis dose not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer must show the percentage of people may infect after muscle strain. Also the arguer must take medical skills of both doctors into account. To better assess the conclusion, we would need more information about other factors contributed to the recuperation slowly, and more information about the allergic history and drug resistance of patients.