【09GRE作文冲刺组】ccd2月24日作文

ccdUID: 2535452

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: 455
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2009-2-25 17:38:44

In this argument, the speaker claims that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics to reduce their recuperation time. To support his assertion, the speaker cites a study's preliminary results to prove the hypothesis that secondary infections keep some patients from healing quickly after seere muscle. However, the argument is flawed because of the groudless assumption it depends on.
First of all, the study are unpersuasive since the speaker cannot exclud many possibilities that may influent the result. On one hand, the speaker provide no information about the two group of patients. As the common knowledge that it takes more time for one has a severe muscle strain to heal than the one not so serious; and young people usually heal from the muscle strain more quikely than the aged people. Thus, without more information about the patients, the speaker cannot reach the conclusion. On the other hand, the two group of patients are treated by two doctors. It is possible that two doctors have two kind of madical skills or physical treatments besides the antibiotics, which may make a great difference upon the patients' recuperation time. Or the Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in spotes medicine, may have more expirences towards this kind of muscle injuries than the general physician Dr. Alton. Those possibilities have not been ruled out by the speakers.

Then, the speaker overlooked the major premise that the group of patients who were not anctually taking antibiotics throughout the study have suffered by the secondary infections. Since no evidence provided, the speakers fails to prove that it is the secondary infections that keep the patients from healing quikely. And perhaps the antibiotics has other functions that will help the patients to reduce the recuperation time instead of preventing the secondary infection. Therefore, the hypothesis can no longer be proved by the preliminary results of the study.

Last not least, even assum that all the assumptions above are reasonable, the speaker cannot come to the suggestion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle srain should be advised to take antibiotics. Besides the treatment, most medicines have bad influence upon the patients. What's more the speakers cannot exclud that there might be a part of patients who are alerget with the antibiotics. And whether it is necessary for the patient to take the risks to reduce recuperation time by having antibiotics? This question should not be forgetten.

In conclution, the speaker should work more the make the study more scientific and persuasive by giving the information of the patients, keeping the controlable conditions of the two groups the same and finding out the true function of the antibiotics as well as the harmful influence it might bring upon the patients.

tanyujing2UID: 2600111

In this argument, the speaker claims that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics to reduce their recuperation time. To support his assertion, the speaker cites a study's preliminary results to prove the hypothesis that secondary infections keep some patients from healing quickly after seere muscle. However, the argument is flawed because of the groudless assumption it depends on.

First of all, the study are unpersuasive since the speaker cannot exclud many possibilities that may influent the result. On one hand, the speaker provide no information about the two group of patients. As the common knowledge that it takes more time for one has a severe muscle strain to heal than the one not so serious; and young people usually heal from the muscle strain more quikely than the aged people. Thus, without more information about the patients, the speaker cannot reach the conclusion. On the other hand, the two group of patients are treated by two doctors. It is possible that two doctors have two kind of madical skills or physical treatments besides the antibiotics, which may make a great difference upon the patients' recuperation time. Or the Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in spotes medicine, may have more expirences towards this kind of muscle injuries than the general physician Dr. Alton. Those possibilities have not been ruled out by the speakers.

Then, the speaker overlooked the major premise that the group of patients who were not anctually taking antibiotics throughout the study have suffered by the secondary infections. Since no evidence provided, the speakers fails to prove 重复了that it is the secondary infections that keep the patients from healing quikely. And perhaps the antibiotics has other functions that will help the patients to reduce the recuperation time instead of preventing the secondary infection. Therefore, the hypothesis can no longer be proved by the preliminary results of the study.
并非二次感染使他不易恢复，你要多说一点原因的。而那些套句能免则免~

Last not least, even assum that all the assumptions above are reasonable, the speaker cannot come to the suggestion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle srain should be advised to take antibiotics. Besides the treatment, most medicines have bad influence upon the patients. What's more the speakers cannot exclud that there might be a part of patients who are alerget *改成allergicwith（改to) the antibiotics. And whether it is necessary for the patient to take the risks to reduce recuperation time by having antibiotics? 还可以多说一点的，因为前面这句只是对第二句的重复~This question should not be forgetten.

In conclution, the speaker should work more the make the study more scientific （没明白这里）and persuasive by giving the information of the patients, keeping the controlable conditions of the two groups the same and finding out the true function of the antibiotics as well as the harmful influence it might bring upon the patients.

恩，我说自己对于A的看法吧，反正只有几天就要考了，我觉得，A的开头能省则省，重点放在alternatives和counterexamples上面，就像那时候别人说我的，不要只是用套句当做反驳的有力的条件，这是不可能的，挑错谁都会，但是要把错误解释及反驳地没有余地，才是G的要求吧~~~

以上也是别人跟我说过的，共勉~！