Argument51 Kito小组作业贴 多谢修改^-^

bunnymz2005UID: 2146758

【题目】
Argument51（2005年2-9月总频23次）
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."
**********************************************************************************
【翻译】
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。
***********************************************************************************
【提纲】
1. 没有证据表明抗生素可以有效抑制二次感染，而使患者迅速康复。
2. 对照组实验有问题，两个doctor不一样，很可能是因为这个原因造成了结果的不同。
3. 而且作者没有给出关于参与实验的人群的信息，很有可能本身体质就是不一样的，这样也可能造成结果的不同。
4. 即使承认服用抗生素的确有利于一些患者的迅速康复，适合所有人么？作者也没有考虑是否有其他的副作用，不好的影响等等。
***********************************************************************************
【正文】
Prior to accepting the recommendation that the doctor should advise their patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment in order to recover quicker than expected, I find that the evidence presented in this argument requires a close scrutiny from several aspects. The author seems to unduly rely on the experiment cited in this argument and thus draw a conclusion that is fundamentally flawed.

First of all, we should account for the two terminologies, that is, secondary infections and the antibiotics. As it stands, the author provides no evidence that antibiotics would have effect on preventing secondary infections and therefore curtail the time for recuperation. In fact, It is entirely possible that antibiotics itself is the immediate and effective medicine to cure muscle strain. Obviously in that case, the result would undoubtedly be that the first group recover quicker than the second group just because the former take antibiotics while the latter do not.  As a consequence, the result got from this experiment may tend to be insignificant at best.

In addition, the problematic experiment also undermines this argument in that people who carry out this experiment fails to eliminate other possible explanation for the result such as the doctor and the patients. For one thing, the doctors in the two groups are not the same person and also have different backgrounds. Perhaps the doctor who specializes in sports medicine deals with myriad patients suffering from muscle strain every day and thus owns rich experience in healing this kind of injury while the doctor who is a general physician is likely to have rarely met this situation. For that matter, it is nature that the first group get better remedy and therefore recuperate faster than the second group. Furthermore, the physical condition of patients by nature should also be taken into account. Since the author fails to provide information about patients, we have good reasons to assume that patients in the first group have good immunity or insist on taking exercises in quotidian life.  Either of these possibilities happens the reliability of the result would be shaken fundamentally.

Finally, even assuming that taking antibiotics can help the patients recover from muscle strain effectively, it would nevertheless be perfunctory to conclude that antibiotics would perfectly apply to all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain in general. For example, children who often need special care in society would be likely to be injured by using antibiotics, or perhaps the pregnant women are highly likely to give birth to an unhealthy baby because the medicine do harm to embryo. Moreover, common sense tells us that before using certain medicine for a disease; people should assure that the medicine has been examined for a long time. Since the author fails to respond to these concerns, the conclusion that prescribing antibiotics to all the patients is untenable.

To sum up, before deciding to use a medicine the doctor should first keep the patient from possible disadvantages originated from the medicine. After all, that really has something to do with people's health and life security.

lawrence1984UID: 178326

Argument51 Kito小组作业贴 多谢修改^-^

【题目】
Argument51（2005年2-9月总频23次）
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."
**********************************************************************************
【翻译】
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。
***********************************************************************************
【提纲】
1. 没有证据表明抗生素可以有效抑制二次感染，而使患者迅速康复。
2. 对照组实验有问题，两个doctor不一样，很可能是因为这个原因造成了结果的不同。（这点怎么驳斥呢？ ）
3. 而且作者没有给出关于参与实验的人群的信息，很有可能本身体质就是不一样的，这样也可能造成结果的不同。
4. 即使承认服用抗生素的确有利于一些患者的迅速康复，适合所有人么？作者也没有考虑是否有其他的副作用，不好的影响等等。（后面两个驳斥点选得很好！ ）
***********************************************************************************
【正文】
Prior to accepting the recommendation that the doctor should advise their patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment in order to recover quicker than expected, I find that the evidence presented in this argument requires a close scrutiny from several aspects. The author seems to unduly rely on the experiment cited in this argument and thus draw a conclusion that is fundamentally flawed.（文章开头有利一定的模板，如题迅速，很好！ ）

First of all, we should account for the two terminologies, that is, secondary infections and the antibiotics.（考虑很细致，我以前就没有专门驳斥过这类错误，学习中……） As it stands, the author provides no evidence that antibiotics would have effect on preventing secondary infections and therefore curtail the time for recuperation. In fact, It is entirely possible that antibiotics itself is the immediate and effective medicine to cure muscle strain. Obviously in that case, the result would undoubtedly be that the first group recover quicker than the second group just because the former take antibiotics while the latter do not.  As a consequence, the result got from this experiment may tend to be insignificant at best. （这段的驳斥写得很好！）

In addition, the problematic experiment also undermines this argument in that people who carry out this experiment fails to eliminate other possible explanation for the result such as the doctor and the patients. For one thing, the doctors in the two groups are not the same person and also have different backgrounds. Perhaps the doctor who specializes in sports medicine deals with myriad patients suffering from muscle strain every day and thus owns rich experience in healing this kind of injury while the doctor who is a general physician is likely to have rarely met this situation. For that matter, it is nature that the first group get better remedy and therefore recuperate faster than the second group. Furthermore,（既然开头用了for one thing, 这里用for another thing 我个人觉得好些，你批判吸收哦！） the physical condition of patients by nature should also be taken into account. Since the author fails to provide （any）information about patients, we have good reasons to assume that patients in the first group have good immunity or insist on taking exercises in quotidian life.  Either of these possibilities happens (,) the reliability of the result would be shaken fundamentally.（这段的驳斥很仔细，但是如果和第二段换一下位置，驳斥的中心，即主要错误会显得更突出，你觉得呢？）

Finally, even assuming that taking antibiotics can help the patients recover from muscle strain effectively, it would nevertheless be perfunctory to conclude that antibiotics would perfectly apply to all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain in general. For example, children who often need special care in society would be likely to be injured by using antibiotics, or perhaps the pregnant women are highly likely to give birth to an unhealthy baby because the medicine do harm to embryo.(想得真仔细啊！) Moreover, common sense tells us that before using certain medicine for a disease; people should assure that the medicine has been examined for a long time. Since the author fails to respond to these concerns, the conclusion that prescribing antibiotics to all the patients is untenable.（这段的驳斥也还不错，对于药物的推广使用写得得当）

To sum up, before deciding to use a medicine the doctor should first keep the patient from possible disadvantages originated from the medicine. After all, that really has something to do with people's health and life security.
你的Argument 已经没有什么大问题了，要减少细节性的失误如缺少标点，同时驳斥方面的逻辑安排还值得练习，关于细节可以再细化。在过渡词和连接词方面在更进一步，那么就可接近完美了。继续努力！

kito9695UID: 209685

Argument51 Kito小组作业贴 多谢修改^-^

【题目】
Argument51（2005年2-9月总频23次）
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."
**********************************************************************************
【翻译】
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。
***********************************************************************************
【提纲】
1. 没有证据表明抗生素可以有效抑制二次感染，而使患者迅速康复。
2. 对照组实验有问题，两个doctor不一样，很可能是因为这个原因造成了结果的不同。
3. 而且作者没有给出关于参与实验的人群的信息，很有可能本身体质就是不一样的，这样也可能造成结果的不同。在文中，2、3点合起来了吧
4. 即使承认服用抗生素的确有利于一些患者的迅速康复，适合所有人么？作者也没有考虑是否有其他的副作用，不好的影响等等。
***********************************************************************************
【正文】
Prior to这个词组用得好啊 accepting the recommendation that the doctor should advise their patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment in order to recover quicker than expected, I find that the evidence presented in this argument requires a close scrutiny from several aspects. The author seems to unduly rely on the experiment cited in this argument and thus draw a conclusion that is fundamentally flawed.恩，开头很好，学习ing

First of all, we should account for the two terminologies,学习这种写法 that is, secondary infections and the antibiotics. As it stands, the author provides no evidence that antibiotics would have effect on preventing secondary infections and therefore curtail the time for recuperation. In fact, It is entirely恩，修饰possible,没用过学习ing possible that antibiotics itself is the immediate and effective medicine to cure muscle strain. Obviously in that case, the result would undoubtedly be that the first group recover quicker than the second group just because the former take antibiotics while the latter do not.  As a consequence, the result got from this experiment may tend to be insignificant at best. 在这里考虑到secondary infections和antibiotics很好，但是我有一个疑问，我觉得虽然题目中的意思是antibiotics对secondary infections起作用进而影响了muscle strain病人的康复，但是你列出的可能性——antibiotics直接对muscle strain有作用，并不能有力地驳斥最终argument的观点” all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment”，我觉得着个地方需要再斟酌一下

In addition, the problematic学习 experiment also undermines this argument in that people who carry out this experiment fails to eliminate other possible explanation for the result such as the doctor and the patients. For one thing, the doctors in the two groups are not the same person and also have different backgrounds. Perhaps the doctor who specializes in sports medicine deals with myriad patients suffering from muscle strain every day and thus owns rich experience in healing this kind of injury while the doctor who is a general physician is likely to have rarely met this situation. For that matter, it is nature that the first group get better remedy and therefore recuperate faster than the second group. 恩，用for another thing照应上面吧Furthermore, the physical condition of patients by nature不知道这个用得对不对？ should also be taken into account. Since the author fails to provide information about patients, we have good reasons to assume that patients in the first group have good immunity or insist on taking exercises in quotidian呵呵,GRE词汇 life. If Either of these possibilities happens, the reliability of the result would be shaken fundamentally.

Finally, even assuming that taking antibiotics can help the patients recover from muscle strain effectively, it would nevertheless be perfunctory to conclude that antibiotics would perfectly apply to all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain in general. For example, children嗯，没想到，学习ing who often need special care in society would be likely to be injured by using antibiotics, or perhaps the pregnant women学习ing are highly likely to give birth to an unhealthy baby because the medicine do harm to embryo. Moreover, common sense tells us that before using certain medicine for a disease; people should assure that the medicine has been examined for a long time. Since the author fails to respond to学习ing these concerns, the conclusion that prescribing antibiotics to all the patients is untenable.

To sum up, before deciding to use a medicine the doctor should first keep the patient from possible disadvantages originated from the medicine. After all, that really has something to do with people's health and life security.总结的时候，只提到了副作用这一点儿，似乎别的漏洞也需要笼统地说一下

总之，行文很流畅，句式丰富不死板，词汇也很好，好多值得我学习的地方，我就在逻辑上挑挑骨头了，也不一定合理，批判地接受吧哈

改晚了，表怪阿~~:lol

bunnymz2005UID: 2146758

但是我有一个疑问，我觉得虽然题目中的意思是antibiotics对secondary infections起作用进而影响了muscle strain病人的康复，但是你列出的可能性——antibiotics直接对muscle strain有作用，并不能有力地驳斥最终argument的观点” all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment”，我觉得着个地方需要再斟酌一下

说实话，我也觉得这里很有问题
我的本意是想说，这个试验并不能证明医生的怀疑，因为这里并没有给出任何信息说抗生素是通过防止二次感染而起作用的，很有可能抗生素直接就对治疗扭伤有奇效。这样一来，这个实验就没有意义了，因为它本是为了证明医生对于二次感染的怀疑，而结果是这个实验跟二次感染可以完全没有关系，充其量这个实验只可能证明抗生素对治疗扭伤有效，而绝不能证明二次感染抑制了病人的康复。

很绕，给我一些建议吧，或者干脆不写这段了。