[big fish] 3月29日 ARGUMENT51 by wowoyuweiwei

wowoyuweiweiUID: 2754055

In this argument, the arguer demonstrates several evidences to show that the antibiotics treat patients suffering from the muscle strain well. At the first glance, it seems well reasoned. But after thinking about it twice, I figure out it is not that logical.

At first, from the experiment mentioned above, we can not conclude that the antibiotics are more effective. We have no information about the patients’ health conditions. In our common sense, the length of the recovery is determined by several factors including how serious the hurt is. So, the proof that the patients treated by antibiotics recovered, on average, 40 percent quirkier than typically expected is not convincing as it stands. Perhaps the patients were not in a serious condition or even almost recovered. For this reason, their recuperation time was absolutely shorter compared with patients in the second groups who was seriously hurt. Thus, this evidence fails to convince readers.

Furthermore, the doctors are also different in this experiment. One of them is a specialist in sports medicine called Dr. Newland. However, the other one's major is physician. As we all know, even though the doctor's major are the same, the different experience also more or less influences the doctor’s decision about how to treat the patients which determines the recuperation time. So, in this experiment, because of the different majors which is a more obvious difference compared with the condition talked above, the results can not support the author's idea.

To the last, even though the antibiotics is much better in treating muscle strain, it is unfair to claim that all the patients should take antibiotics instead other medicines like sugar pills. We should not ignore the immune system of human beings. This special system may cause a more serious health problem to a person if he or she eats something can lead an irritation. The allergy probably makes the patients feel more hurt. And, probably, there are people who are hypersensitive with the antibiotics. Thus, we should not entirely believe what the writer says.

In summary, to bolster the argument well, the arguer ought to demonstrate more evidence to show that the antibiotics are the most suitable medicine for muscle strain. And, moreover, the author should not suggest that all patients with muscle strain have antibiotics before he master enough proofs. Only in this way, can this argument convince readers.

jjooyyUID: 2704028

In this argument, the arguer demonstrates several evidences to show that the antibiotics treat patients suffering from the muscle strain well. At the first glance, it seems well reasoned. But after thinking about it twice, I figure out it is not that logical.

At first, from the experiment mentioned above, we can not conclude that the antibiotics are more effective. We have no information about the patients’ health conditions. In our common sense, the length of the recovery is determined by several factors including how serious the hurt is. So, the proof that the patients treated by antibiotics recovered, on average, 40 percent quirkier than typically expected is not convincing as it stands. Perhaps in the first group the patients were not in a serious condition or even almost recovered. For this reason, their recuperation time was absolutely shorter compared with patients in the second groups who was seriously hurt. Thus, this evidence fails to convince readers.

Furthermore, the doctors are also different in this experiment. One of them is a specialist in sports medicine called Dr. Newland. However, the other one's major is physician. As we all know, even though the doctor's major are the same, the different experience also more or less influences the doctor’s decision about how to treat the patients which determines the recuperation time. So, in this experiment, because of the different majors which is a more obvious difference compared with the condition talked above, 这句有点乱，似乎一直在说difference the results can not support the author's idea.

To the last, even though the antibiotics is much better in treating muscle strain, it is unfair to claim that all the patients should take antibiotics instead other medicines like sugar pills. We should not ignore the immune system of human beings. This special system may cause a more serious health problem to a person if he or she eats something can lead an irritation. The allergy probably makes the patients feel more hurt.（这个不是很专业，more sick至少要好一些） And, probably, there are people who are hypersensitive with the antibiotics. Thus, we should not entirely believe what the writer says.

In summary, to bolster the argument well, the arguer ought to demonstrate more evidence to show that the antibiotics are the most suitable(effective) medicine for muscle strain. And, moreover, the author should not suggest that all patients with muscle strain have antibiotics before he masters enough proofs. Only in this way, can this argument convince readers.
建议可以再细化一点 讲应该怎样提供证据 才比较充足 的角度具体提供例子 会不会更好？