【clover】ARGUMENT51 BY Misir (第四次作业)

misirUID: 2684938

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: 470
TIME: 00:59:53
DATE: 2010/2/10 19:02:08

The author's conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics, which based on the hypothesis, is not persuasive, for the hypothesis only has been proved by preliminary results of a unconvincing study.


Firstly, the study of two groups of patients is problematic, even the basic statistic has not been given. Are all the people in the study in the same gender, and their health conditions? We don't know. What's more, are they all being treaded for muscle injuries? Although the patients of first group are all treated for muscle injuries, how should we know the second group? Maybe the patients of second group suffer from other injuries. And what does the "typically expected" and "significantly" mean in the argument? I must say that these two words are too vague to reflect the truth. It must be quantified for the author to gain a reasonable conclusion. And the doctor in each group has different professions. If the fact that the doctor in first group who specializes in sports medicine is known to the patients, they maybe have a psychological suggestion that they will be cured very soon, While in the other group, the patients may doubt the doctor's skill, who is a general physician. So the psychological states of the patients may influence the medicine's effect.
If the author doesn't give more information about the details of the study, I'm sorry to say that the study cannot prove the hypothesis.

Even if the study is perfect and convincing, the author still fails to prove the hypothesis. In the study, there is no evidence showing that the patients are secondary infections who have severe muscle strain before. What if the patients' muscle is just slightly strained? What if the infection is the first not the second? What's more, the study just gives the preliminary results, which is not enough to prove the hypothesis. The author must provide more evidence to persuade me.


Finally, even if the hypothesis is correct, the author's advice that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is misleading. Every medicine has its own scope, it may be applied one person but it may not in another patient in different conditions. If the medicine has some side effect to special people, it won't be wise to advice them to take this kind of antibiotics. And whether the muscle strain is severe or slight must be taken into account, or the hypothesis can not deduce the advice.

To sum up, the author makes several mistakes that make the conclusion unsupportable as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must present more detailed information about the study, and do follow-up studies to gain a insightful conclusion.

a08805436UID: 2725634

【clover】ARGUMENT51 BY Misir (第四次作业)

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: 470 TIME: 00:59:53 DATE: 2010/2/10 19:02:08 The author's conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics, which based on the hypothesis, is not persuasive, for the hypothesis only has been proved by preliminary results of a unconvincing study. Firstly, the study of two groups of patients is problematic, even the basic statistic has not been given. Are all the people in the study in the same gender, and their health conditions? We don't know. What's more, are they all being treaded(treated) for muscle injuries? Although the patients of first group are all treated for muscle injuries, how should we know the second group? Maybe the patients of second group suffer from other injuries. And what does the "typically expected" and "significantly" mean in the argument? I must say that these two words are too vague to reflect the truth. It must be quantified for the author to gain a reasonable conclusion. And the doctor in each group has different professions. If the fact that the doctor in first group who specializes in sports medicine is known to the patients, they maybe have a psychological suggestion that they will be cured very soon, While in the other group, the patients may doubt the doctor's skill, who is a general physician. So the psychological states of the patients may influence the medicine's effect. If the author doesn't give more information about the details of the study, I'm sorry to say(这个句式用在文章里不太好吧)that the study cannot prove the hypothesis. 问号出现在argument中有时是很漂亮的，但是如果一个自然段里问号过多容易影响全篇的逻辑观赏性 Even if the study is perfect and convincing, the author still fails to prove the hypothesis. In the study, there is no evidence showing that the patients are secondary infections who have severe muscle strain before. What if the patients' muscle is just slightly strained? What if the infection is the first not the second? What's more, the study just gives the preliminary results, which is not enough to prove the hypothesis. The author must provide more evidence to persuade me. Finally, even if the hypothesis is correct, the author's advice that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is misleading. Every medicine has its own scope, it may be applied one person but it may not in another patient in different conditions. If the medicine has some side effect to special people, it won't be wise to advice them to take this kind of antibiotics. And whether the muscle strain is severe or slight must be taken into account, or the hypothesis can not（cannot） deduce the advice. To sum up, the author makes several mistakes that make the conclusion unsupportable as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must present more detailed information about the study, and do follow-up studies to gain a insightful conclusion.

这篇文章的点都找对了，但是在论证语言上不够专业。建议楼主参看范文多加修正

此外 注意让步的使用范围

个人意见 仅供参考
by a08805436

misirUID: 2684938

我觉得JULYMAY的第一段come up with 有问题的，如果仅是come up也是有问题的~因为两者都没有提到的意思。 2# a08805436

taotaoleUID: 2694983

The author's conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics, which based on the hypothesis, is not persuasive, for the hypothesis only has been proved by preliminary results of an unconvincing study.
开头简明直接
Firstly, the study of two groups of patients is problematic, even（even没有连词词性，建议用even though） the basic statistic has not been given. Are all the people in the study in the same gender (这个反例提出来意义不大，难道不同性别的康复时间预期是不同的被证明对研究结果影响很大吗~), and their health conditions? We don't know. What's more, are they all being treaded (+treated) for muscle injuries? Although the patients of first group are all treated for muscle injuries, how should we know the second group? Maybe the patients of second group suffer from other injuries. （这里感觉在强词夺理~）And what does the "typically expected" and "significantly" mean in the argument? I must say that these two words are too vague to reflect the truth. It must be quantified for the author to gain a reasonable conclusion. And the doctor in each group has different professions. If the fact that the doctor in first group who specializes in sports medicine is known to the patients, they maybe have a psychological suggestion that they will be cured very soon, While in the other group, the patients may doubt the doctor's skill, who is a general physician. So the psychological states of the patients may influence the medicine's effect. If the author doesn't give more information about the details of the study, I'm sorry to say that the study cannot prove the hypothesis.
对研究中错误的质疑。点比较全，而且有提出比较新的医生专业性心理暗示作用。但论证中最关键的问题在于反例举的不恰当，建议重温下66的讲解还有推荐的精华。
Even if the study is perfect and convincing, the author still fails to prove the hypothesis. In the study, there is no evidence showing that the patients are secondary infections who have severe muscle strain before. What if the patients' muscle is just slightly strained? What if the infection is the first not the second? （这个反问也……）What's more, the study just gives the preliminary results, which is not enough to prove the hypothesis. The author must provide more evidence to persuade me.
说明研究不能证明假设。点也都涉及到了，但建议论证的时候有侧重些会更好。
Finally, even if the hypothesis is correct, the author's advice that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is misleading. Every medicine has its own scope, it may be applied one person but it may not in another patient in different conditions. If the medicine has some side effect to special people, it won't be wise to advice them to take this kind of antibiotics. And whether the muscle strain is severe or slight must be taken into account, or the hypothesis cannot (两个词不要分开
) deduce the advice.
从结论的绝对化来说谬误。论证较之前好很多。但还是重点抓的不好。可以就大家知道的常识来否定啊~比如说抗生素不是每个人都能使用，因为有人会过敏的。
To sum up, the author makes several mistakes that make the conclusion unsupportable as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must present more detailed information about the study, and do follow-up studies to gain an insightful conclusion.结尾干净利落。
总评：对A材料的错误点都有把握到，而且有些新的发掘。分析结构也合理。问题主要在于论证方式，特别是举反例上。语言方面通顺，表达基本清晰，但建议多使用正式规范的表达。