Argument51

ydycgwllUID: 2894737

题目原逻辑顺序：医生怀疑二次感染妨碍恢复（隐含假设：试验中每个人服用抗生素一定可以防止二次感染）——两组实验（服用抗生素&仅仅心理上服用抗生素）&（两组实验的医生水平不一样？前者是否会给病人恢复带来信心）&（糖丸是否不利于康复？）&（整个实验的其它因素是否都一致？）——结果不一样——所有的肌肉受伤者均应结合抗生素治疗（初步实验结果证实？是否有后遗症？）

It is certain that, as doctors have long suspected, secondary infection will make the patients suffering from muscle injuries more difficult in recuperation. We should prevent them from being infected as impossible as we can during the treatment. Otherwise, it just can be compared to pouring oil over the flame, resulting in worse and worse circumstances. However, the preliminary results of the experiment of two groups of patients, to which there are so many questions, can really prove the truth and get the conclusion that ll patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.
首先肯定二次感染不利于康复且的确应该防止感染，同时质疑实验是否能证明这个事实并得出最后结论

As we all know, if we want to demonstrate something by a contrast experiment, we must promise there are not any other difference except the aspect we need to compare. That ‘s to say, to reach the conclusion about the secondary infection, the two groups should be compared directly to be of any effect. Oppositely, many differences exist between the two groups of patients during the treatment though all of the patients are under the same psychological states that they believe they are taking antibiotics. For instance, not only are different the doctors of two groups, a big distinction lies there—a doctor who specializes in sports medicine VS a general physician, but also no information proofs the physical strength of the patients between two groups are similar. Evidently, the first group can get more confidence from their doctor than the later. What’s more, whether the severe degree of muscle injures between two groups is just about right or not?
从两组实验存在太多的不同因素出发，指出两组实验可对比性差，可信度低

The conclusion is made too hasty because it has been admitted in the argument that the results are no more than preliminary ones. To be responsible for the patients and for the medical science in general, a more thorough research is definitely needed. As the time goes, there may be some negative effects on the patients who have taken antibiotics. Therefore, it would be quite unscientific to advice each patient to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, because some patients are allergic to antibiotics. Some antibiotics, such as penicillin, are fatal to those allergic patients. From these we can infer that taking antibiotics throughout patients’ treatment can’t surely hold secondary infection back for anyone who is diagnosed with muscle strain.
指出不能仅从初步结果就推断结论，且抗生素有引起过敏的现象，从而推出题目中暗含的假设不成立——任何人服用抗生素就可以防止二次感染（原题中进而通过实验推断任何肌肉受伤的病人都要服用抗生素）

Consequently, more rigorous research should be designed to convince people that taking antibiotics can help some patients more quickly recover from muscle injures. Different people may have different reaction on taking antibiotics because of different constitution during different periods. It is very irresponsible for doctors to affirm that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

dreamerdanceUID: 2759402

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

题目原逻辑顺序：医生怀疑二次感染妨碍恢复（隐含假设：试验中每个人服用抗生素一定可以防止二次感染）——两组实验（服用抗生素&仅仅心理上服用抗生素）&（两组实验的医生水平不一样？前者是否会给病人恢复带来信心）&（糖丸是否不利于康复？）&（整个实验的其它因素是否都一致？）——结果不一样——所有的肌肉受伤者均应结合抗生素治疗（初步实验结果证实？是否有后遗症？）

It is certain that, as doctors have long suspected, secondary infection will make the patients suffering from muscle injuries more difficult in recuperation(这句话有点小问题，可以这么写，. secondary infection may impede quick healing after the injury)
We should prevent them from being infected as impossible as we can during the treatment.(感觉有点多余) Otherwise, it just can be compared to pouring oil over the flame, resulting in worse and worse circumstances. However, the preliminary results of the experiment of two groups of patients, to which there are so many questions, can（can’t吧） really prove the truth and get the conclusion that ll？？？ patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.
个人认为最后一句不要重复原句，可以换一种说法，或者不说，改为一句统领全文脉络的句子。有一点罗嗦，句子可以再精炼一点。
首先肯定二次感染不利于康复且的确应该防止感染，同时质疑实验是否能证明这个事实并得出最后结论

As we all know, if we want to demonstrate something by a contrast experiment, we must promise there are not any other difference except the aspect we need to compare. That ‘s to say,
to reach the conclusion about the secondary infection, the two groups should be compared directly to be of any effect. Oppositely这个主要表示位置的相反，建议使用contrarily, many differences exist between the two groups of patients during the treatment though all of the patients are under the same psychological states that they believe they are taking antibiotics. For instance, not only are different the doctors of two groups, a big distinction lies there—a doctor who specializes in sports medicine VS a general physician,
but also no information proofs
（proves that）the physical strength
（condition）of the patients between two groups不需要 are similar.（The same） Evidently, the first group can get more confidence from their doctor than the later. What’s more, whether the severe degree（degree of severity）of muscle injures between two groups is just about right （about right是什么意思？）or not?
从两组实验存在太多的不同因素出发，指出两组实验可对比性差，可信度低
我觉得逻辑蛮清晰，但是语言还是不够清楚，句子之间不够连贯

The conclusion is made too hasty （我觉得it is too hasty to make the conclusion更好吧）because it has been admitted in the argument that the results are no more than preliminary ones. 这个观点不错，仅仅是初步的证实，不能当做参考To be responsible for the patients and for the medical science （in general 一般来说，大体上，我建议换成as a whole,就整体来看）, a more thorough research is definitely needed. As the time goes, there may be some negative effects on the patients who have taken antibiotics. Therefore, it would be quite unscientific to advice each patient to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, because （since）some patients are allergic to antibiotics. Some antibiotics, such as penicillin, are fatal to those allergic patients. From these we can infer that the assertion that不能没有先行词taking antibiotics throughout patients’ treatment can’t surely hold secondary infection back for anyone who is diagnosed with muscle strain.
指出不能仅从初步结果就推断结论，且抗生素有引起过敏的现象，从而推出题目中暗含的假设不成立——任何人服用抗生素就可以防止二次感染（原题中进而通过实验推断任何肌肉受伤的病人都要服用抗生素）

Consequently, more rigorous research should be designed and carried to convince people that taking antibiotics can help some patients recover from muscle injures more quickly. Different people may have different reaction on (to) taking antibiotics because of different constitution during different periods. It is very irresponsible for doctors to affirm that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

总体逻辑还不错，但是找的点有点少，只有控制实验单一变量和过敏问题，显得很单一，可以再丰富一下，并且阐述清楚。
比起逻辑而言，我觉得问题更大的是语言，多处很罗嗦，简单句太多，完全可以合为一句话来说，还有的时候前后两个句子表达的是一个意思，或者是从相反的方面来说也显得有点多余。注意一些小词的运用和表达。
1# ydycgwll

ydycgwllUID: 2894737

一改后的自改版：
Is it certain that, as doctors have long suspected, secondary infection will make the patients suffering from muscle injuries more difficult in recuperation? The speaker tries to prove the answer end in “Yes” by the preliminary results of the experiment of two groups of patients, however, to which there are so many doubtful points in the process of the study. Moreover, it’s awfully unconvincing of inferring the conclusion that patients, who are diagnosed with muscle strain, should take antibiotics as part of their treatment.
首先肯定二次感染不利于康复且的确应该防止感染，同时质疑实验是否能证明这个事实并得出最后结论

As we all know, if we want to demonstrate something by a contrast experiment, we must promise there are not any other difference except the aspect we need to compare. That ‘s to say, to reach the conclusion about the use of antibiotics to secondary infection, the two groups should be compared directly to be of any effect.

However, many differences exist between the two groups of patients during the treatment though all of the patients are under the same psychological states that they believe they are taking antibiotics. For instance, not only are different the doctors of two groups, a big distinction lies there—a doctor who specializes in sports medicine VS a general physician, but also no information can affirm the physical strength of the patients between two groups are similar. （针对以上两点补充一些具体的论证）In the field of muscle strain, Dr. Newland, a specialist in sports medicine might emphasize more on the physical recovery rather than overall body conditions, which otherwise would be more embraced by Dr. Alton, a general physician. As a result rarely can this study become sound enough without rolling out possible influence from doctors’ specialization as well as therapeutic manners. As for the objectives of the study, the possible scenario is, rather than those in the second group, individuals in the first one are younger and physically stronger, with higher spirits, each of which could serve to a faster recuperation.
Evidently, the first group can get more confidence from their doctor than the later. What’s more, whether the severe degree of muscle injures between two groups is just about right or not?（补论证）The possible scenario is, rather than those in the second group, individuals in the first one are younger and physically stronger, with higher spirits, each of which could serve to a faster recuperation.
从两组实验存在太多的不同因素出发，指出两组实验可对比性差，可信度低

The conclusion is made too hasty because it has been admitted in the argument that the results are no more than preliminary ones. To be responsible for the patients and for the medical science, as a whole, more thorough research is definitely needed. As the time goes, there may be some negative effects on the patients who have taken antibiotics. Therefore, it would be quite unscientific to advice each patient to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, because some patients are allergic to antibiotics. Some antibiotics, such as penicillin, are fatal to those allergic patients. From these we can infer that taking antibiotics throughout patients’ treatment can’t surely hold secondary infection back for anyone who is diagnosed with muscle strain.
指出不能仅从初步结果就推断结论，且抗生素有引起过敏的现象，从而推出题目中暗含的假设不成立——任何人服用抗生素就可以防止二次感染（原题中进而通过实验推断任何肌肉受伤的病人都要服用抗生素）

Consequently, more rigorous research should be designed and carried out to convince people that taking antibiotics can help some patients more quickly recover from muscle injures more quickly. Different people may have different reaction to taking antibiotics because of different constitution during different periods. It is very irresponsible for doctors to affirm that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

刘文奇UID: 2850560

Is it certain that, as doctors have long suspected, secondary infection will make the(删除) patients suffering from muscle injuries more difficult in recuperation? The speaker tries to prove the answer，and end in “Yes” by the preliminary results of the experiment of two groups of patients, however, to which there are so many doubtful points in the process of the study(which 指代什么？). Moreover, it’s awfully unconvincing of inferring the conclusion that patients, who are diagnosed with muscle strain, should take antibiotics as part of their treatment.
首先肯定二次感染不利于康复且的确应该防止感染，同时质疑实验是否能证明这个事实并得出最后结论

As we all know, if we want to demonstrate something by a contrast（对照试验，一般用control） experiment, we must promise there are not any other difference（s） except the aspect(factor) we need to compare(research). That ‘s to say, to reach the conclusion about the use of antibiotics to secondary infection, the two groups should be compared directly to be of any effect. (这段有些啰嗦，其实就想说明一个问题：除了我们想研究的那个因素外，其他的因素都应该保持一致。建议压缩，不要独成一段。)

However（这个副词来的有些突然）, many differences exist between the two groups of patients during the treatment though all of the patients are under the same psychological states that they（这些可以考虑删除。） believe they are taking antibiotics. For instance, not only are different the doctors of two groups, a big distinction lies there—（这些可以考虑删除。） a doctor who specializes in sports medicine VS a general physician, but also no information can affirm the（删去） physical strength of the（删去） patients between（of） two groups are similar. （针对以上两点补充一些具体的论证）In the field of muscle strain, Dr. Newland, a specialist in sports medicine might emphasize more on the physical recovery rather than overall body conditions, which otherwise would be more embraced by Dr. Alton, a general physician(两个医生的意见到底相同还是不同呢？？). As a result rarely can this study become sound enough without rolling out possible influence from doctors’ specialization as well as therapeutic manners. As for the（删去） objectives（建议改为result） of the study, the possible scenario is, rather than（compared to） those in the second group, individuals in the first one are younger and physically stronger, with higher spirits, each of which could serve to a faster recuperation.
Evidently, the first group can get more confidence from their doctor than the later(latter). What’s more, whether the severe degree of muscle injures between two groups is just about right or not?（补论证）The possible scenario is, rather than those in the second group, individuals in the first one are younger and physically stronger, with higher spirits, each of which could serve to a faster recuperation.(:L )
从两组实验存在太多的不同因素出发，指出两组实验可对比性差，可信度低

The conclusion is made too hasty because it has been admitted in the argument that the results are no more than preliminary ones. To be responsible for the patients and for the medical science, as a whole, more thorough research is definitely needed. As the（删去） time goes(显得口语化了), there may be some negative effects on the patients who have taken antibiotics. Therefore, it would be quite unscientific to advice each patient to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, because some patients are（might be） allergic to antibiotics. Some antibiotics, such as penicillin, are fatal to those allergic patients. From these we can infer that taking antibiotics throughout patients’ treatment can’t surely hold secondary infection back for anyone who is diagnosed with muscle strain.
指出不能仅从初步结果就推断结论，且抗生素有引起过敏的现象，从而推出题目中暗含的假设不成立——任何人服用抗生素就可以防止二次感染（原题中进而通过实验推断任何肌肉受伤的病人都要服用抗生素）

Consequently, more rigorous research should be designed and carried out to convince people that taking antibiotics can help some patients more quickly recover from muscle injures more quickly. Different people may have different reaction(s) to taking antibiotics because of different constitution during different periods. It is very irresponsible for doctors to affirm that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

(评：总的来说，这篇文章还是显得罗嗦，条理较混乱。其一，文章主要是从两个方面进行抨击：二次感染是否不利于恢复；建议病人服用抗生素是否合理。但是，文章在论证的时候，都显得很混乱。建议作者用Firstly，secondly，thirdly标出。其二：有的语言也很罗嗦，文章最好做到简洁，把一切能删掉的都要删掉。其三，有些句子虽然很长，语法很用得很高明，也没有错，但是读起来还是觉得很生硬，像是硬接上的。所以，我建议，作者首先要把语言炼到流畅、简洁，再在这个基础上，美化自己的语言；其次，在每次写文章前，提纲思路要清楚，论证过程要有逻辑性，之后按照这个思路写下去，应该会是一篇很优秀的文章了。)
有什么不服，欢迎与我讨论~~

ydycgwllUID: 2894737

Is it certain that, as doctors have long suspected, secondary infection will make the patients suffering from muscle injuries more difficult in recuperation? The speaker tries to prove the answer, and end in “Yes” by the preliminary results of the experiment of two groups of patients, however, to which there are so many doubtful points in the process of the study(which 指代什么？非限定性定语从句中which指代其前面整句话的意思). Moreover, it’s awfully unconvincing of inferring the conclusion that patients, who are diagnosed with muscle strain, should take antibiotics as part of their treatment.
首先肯定二次感染不利于康复且的确应该防止感染，同时质疑实验是否能证明这个事实并得出最后结论

As we all know, if we want to demonstrate something by a control experiment, we must promise there are not any other differences except the factor we need to research. That ‘s to say, to reach the conclusion about the use of antibiotics to secondary infection, the two groups should be compared directly to be of any effect. However, many differences exist between the two groups of patients during the treatment though all of the patients are under the same psychological states that they believe they are taking antibiotics. For instance, not only does a big distinction exist between the doctors of two groups--a doctor who specializes in sports medicine VS a general physician--but also no information can affirm physical strength of these patients of two groups are similar. （针对以上两点补充一些具体的论证）In the field of muscle strain, Dr. Newland, a specialist in sports medicine might emphasize more on the physical recovery rather than overall body conditions which otherwise would be more embraced by Dr. Alton, a general physician(两个医生的意见到底相同还是不同呢？？不同，意思是：Dr.N更关注局部恢复，相比关注全身状况，而这正是Dr.A更关注的。). As a result rarely can this study become sound enough without rolling out possible influence from doctors’ specialization as well as therapeutic manners. （补论证）As for objectives（建议改为result，此处不能改，objectives“研究对象”，后文是在讨论病人的身体状况可能相差很大，而不是在说result） of the study, the possible scenario is, rather than/compared to those in the second group, individuals in the first one are younger and physically stronger, with higher spirits, each of which could serve/contribute to a faster recuperation. Evidently, the first group can get more confidence from their doctor than the latter. What’s more, whether the severe degree of muscle injures between two groups is just about right or not?
从两组实验存在太多的不同因素出发，指出两组实验可对比性差，可信度低

The conclusion is made too hasty because it has been admitted in the argument that the results are no more than preliminary ones. To be responsible for the patients and for the medical science, as a whole, more thorough research is definitely needed. As time passing by, there may be some negative effects on the patients who have taken antibiotics. Therefore, it would be quite unscientific to advice each patient to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, because some patients might be allergic to antibiotics. Some antibiotics, such as penicillin, are fatal to those allergic patients. From these we can infer that taking antibiotics throughout patients’ treatment can’t surely hold secondary infection back for anyone who is diagnosed with muscle strain.
指出不能仅从初步结果就推断结论，且抗生素有引起过敏的现象，从而推出题目中暗含的假设不成立——任何人服用抗生素就可以防止二次感染（原题中进而通过实验推断任何肌肉受伤的病人都要服用抗生素）

Consequently, more rigorous research should be designed and carried out to convince people that taking antibiotics can help some patients recover from muscle injures more quickly. Different people may have different reactions to taking antibiotics because of different physical conditions during different periods. It is very irresponsible for doctors to affirm that all patients who are diagnosed as muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

ydycgwllUID: 2894737

文奇，感谢你这么认真地帮我改文章~没有服与不服之说哈~针对你在文中给出的提问我做了回答，欢迎讨论~:p