argument51 欢迎来拍o~

starlxnUID: 2703125

51.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."
医生长期以来怀疑严重肌肉扭伤后的二次感染妨碍了一些患者迅速康复。这一假说现在被一项对两组患者的研究的初步结果所证实。第一组患者全部由专攻运动医学的Dr. Newland治疗肌肉损伤，他们在疗程中经常服用抗生素。他们的康复期平均比通常预期的快40％。第二组患者由综合医师Dr. Alton治疗，他们被给予糖丸，而患者相信他们在服用抗生素。他们的平均康复时间没有明显缩短。因此，任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗。

In the newsletter, the arguer recommends that antibiotics would better be taken as part of the treatment to everyone who is diagnosed with muscle strains. To substantiate this recommendation, the arguer points out that the secondary infections might make adverse effects to the recuperation of muscle strain, and also cites a study to demonstrate that antibiotics can diminish the effects. At the first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing. However, close scrutiny, being based on dubious assumptions and lacking credible evidence make the argument logically unwarranted as it stands.

A threshold assumption upon which the recommendation relies is that the patients of muscle strain may suffer from secondary infections which lead them fail to heal quickly. However, no evidence is provided to convey the causal relationship between muscle strains and secondary infections, which deserves to doubt whether the secondary infections would necessarily follow the muscle strains and bring about undesirable effects on the patients. Perhaps, the secondary infection would hardly occur; or even perhaps the mere fact is that secondary infections would occasionally occur only in some severe cases with little effects. Thus, if the influence on every patient of muscle strains on account of the secondary infections do not be exerted at all, what the arguer recommends on basis of the secondary infections is gratuitous.



Furthermore, even assuming that secondary infections indeed have effects on muscle injuries,the study Insufficient to bolster the conclusion that taking antibiotics can help the patients recover. Lacking any information about the severity of injuries and physical conditions of the two groups of patients ,the arguer unfairly assumes that the reduction of recuperation time is due to the use of antibiotics rather than other factors .It is entirely possible that in the first group the patients’ strains are lighter and to heal easilier,so the recovery need shorter time.Moreover, the arguer might also ignore a host of other potential explanations for the different results of two groups—such as the distinction between treatments provided by the two doctors that the Dr. Newland is expert in cucring muscle strain,or the sugar pills which may have negative effects on the treating.Consequently,without accounting for all the other influential factors,the arguer cannot convince me that the antibiotic is propitious to patients of muscle strains.


Finally, granted that the antibiotics can efficaciously reduce the recuperation time, the recommendation assumes too hastily that antibiotics should be taken to all the muscle strain patients.Probably,not all the patients with muscle strains are suitable to take antibiotics, for instance, the ones who are allergic to antibiotics. Additionally, while whether the antibiotic has side-effects is as yet unknown, advising the patients to take the antibiotics as part of treatments is presumptuous.


To sum up, this arguer fails to substantiate the recommendation that we should take the antibiotics as part of the treatment of muscle strains, because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. Undoubtedly, to make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more information with regard to the causal relationship between muscle strains and secondary infections, and results of more rigorous and scientific study. Therefore, if the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.


恩~~我知道我是水民~~欢迎大家狂拍 多给点建议吧 THX~~ O(∩_∩)O~   

番茄斗斗UID: 2720914

51.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 typicallyexpected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton,a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patientsbelieved they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantlyreduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strainwould be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."
医生长期以来怀疑严重肌肉扭伤后的二次感染妨碍了一些患者迅速康复。这一假说现在被一项对两组患者的研究的初步结果所证实。第一组患者全部由专攻运动医学的Dr. Newland治疗肌肉损伤，他们在疗程中经常服用抗生素。他们的康复期平均比通常预期的快40％。第二组患者由综合医师Dr. Alton治疗，他们被给予糖丸，而患者相信他们在服用抗生素。他们的平均康复时间没有明显缩短。因此，任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗。

In the newsletter, the arguer recommends that antibiotics would betterbe taken as part of the treatment to everyone who is diagnosed with muscle strains.To substantiate this recommendation, the arguer points out that thesecondary infections might make adverse effects to the recuperation ofmuscle strain, and also cites a study to demonstrate that antibioticscan diminish the effects. At the first glance, the argument appears tobe somewhat convincing. However, close scrutiny, being based on dubiousassumptions and lacking credible evidence make the argument logicallyunwarranted as it stands. （与其复述题目，不如直接列举文章的逻辑的错误）

A threshold assumption upon which the recommendation relies is that thepatients of muscle strain may suffer from secondary infections whichlead them fail to heal quickly. However, no evidence is provided toconvey the causal relationship between muscle strains and secondary infections,which deserves to doubt whether the secondary infections wouldnecessarily follow the muscle strains and bring about undesirableeffects on the patients. Perhaps, the secondary infection would hardlyoccur; or even perhaps the mere fact is that secondary infections wouldoccasionally occur only in some severe cases with little effects. （这里攻击的是没有揭示muscle strains和seconday infection之间的联系，然而仅仅就“可能”来驳斥的话，很可能就被人argue back。因此，妥善的做法，个人觉得，应该结合文中的背景来论述，eg,（解释：二次感染多发于病情严重的个例）文中没有说两组的病人的情况->有可能第二组的病情稍轻->第二组不存在二次感染的可能->因此两组不具备可比性->无法证明抗生素能加快病情的恢复）Thus,if the influence on every patient of muscle strains on account of thesecondary infections do not be exerted at all, what the arguerrecommends on basis of the secondary infections is gratuitous.



Furthermore, even assuming that secondary infections indeed haveeffects on muscle injuries,the study Insufficient to bolster theconclusion that taking antibiotics can help the patients recover.Lacking any information about the severity of injuries and physicalconditions of the two groups of patients ,the arguer unfairly assumesthat the reduction of recuperation time is due to the use ofantibiotics rather than other factors .It is entirely possible that inthe first group the patients’ strains are lighter and to healeasilier,so the recovery need shorter time.Moreover, the arguer mightalso ignore a host of other potential explanations for the differentresults of two groups—such as the distinction between treatmentsprovided by the two doctors that the Dr. Newland is expert in cucringmuscle strain,or the sugar pills which may have negative effects on thetreating.（这里应该适当论述这两种情况会导致调查出现怎么样的偏差）Consequently,without accounting for all the other influentialfactors,the arguer cannot convince me that the antibiotic is propitiousto patients of muscle strains.


Finally, granted that the antibiotics can efficaciously reduce therecuperation time, the recommendation assumes too hastily thatantibiotics should be taken to all the muscle strainpatients.Probably,not all the patients with muscle strains are suitableto take antibiotics, for instance, the ones who are allergic toantibiotics. Additionally, while whether the antibiotic hasside-effects is as yet unknown, advising the patients to take theantibiotics as part of treatments is presumptuous.


To sum up, this arguer fails to substantiate the recommendation that weshould take the antibiotics as part of the treatment of muscle strains,because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong supportto what the arguer maintains. Undoubtedly, to make the argument moreconvincing, the arguer would have to provide more information withregard to the causal relationship between muscle strains and secondaryinfections, and results of more rigorous and scientific study.Therefore, if the argument includes the given factors discussed above,it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.

作为第一篇，lz其实写的很好,有些细节的东西再注意下就好了，加油～！

juvleoUID: 2738018

1# starlxn

LZ上的时候看一下你的短消息。

starlxnUID: 2703125

2# 番茄斗斗
:) 谢谢斗斗 收到改文了~~~
这两天也看了些板油的精华文 确实和你有同感啊~~开头确实太模式化了 完全没有必要说这么套话啊 应该再精简点~~毕竟考试时间和打字速度都有限 应该把重点放在问题的扩展上~像下面两段的问题也是这样 问题虽然提了出来 但并没解释其将产生的结果 和不能退出结论的根本原因~~除了基本结构 开展才是arg很重要的一块吧 斗斗的建议采纳了 会加油滴 你也是哈 加油~~