0910G[JUST DO IT] argument51 by dodolulu

dodoluluUID: 2641270

模版直接套上了，第一篇，算是开始了

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: 345

In this argument, the arguer advocates that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Although this argument might seem reasonable at first glance, it is in fact ill-conceived. The reasons are stated as follows.

In the first place, the arguer assumes that the secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case, and the arguer does not supply any evidence to confirm this assumption. It is quite possible that the secondary infections won't happen. To illustrate this point clearly, let us take a look at the following representative example. Maybe the secondary infections don't happen to the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain, or these patients are hard to have secondary infections. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other alternative explanations, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.
In the second place, the arguer assumes that antibiotics soon put these patients to rights. Although this is entirely possible, the auger offers no evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is very likely that
other facts put these patients to rights soon. An appropriate example is not very far to seek. Maybe the first group's patients are better health than the second group's so they recovery from sickness soon, or the doctor who specializes in sports medicine is better at treat muscle strain than the general physician. The arguer's reasoning is definitely flawed unless the arguer can convince me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely.

In the third place, even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, the arguer just simply assumes that sugar pills don't resist the patients recovering and neither any conclusive scientific evidence not any anecdotal evidence is provided to affirm this assumption. It is reasonable to doubt that what the arguer assumes will not happen in reality. It is just as possible that the sugar pills resist the patients recovering. To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer must explain either why none of these alternatives is available or why none of them is able to sustain.
To sum up, the arguer's argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.

二月蓝UID: 2643877

In this argument, the arguer advocates that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Although this argument might seem reasonable at first glance, it is in fact ill-conceived. The reasons are stated as follows.

In the first place, the arguer assumes that the secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case, and the arguer does not supply any evidence to confirm this assumption. It is quite possible that the secondary infections won't happen. To illustrate this point clearly, let us take a look at the following representative example. Maybe the secondary infections don't happen to the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain, or these patients are hard to have secondary infections. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other alternative explanations, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.
In the second place, the arguer assumes that antibiotics soon put these patients to rights. Although this is entirely possible, the auger offers no evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is very likely that other facts put these patients to rights soon. An appropriate example is not very far to seek. Maybe the first group's patients are more healther than the second group's so they recovery from sickness soon, or the doctor who specializes in sports medicine is better at treat muscle strain than the general physician. The arguer's reasoning is definitely flawed unless the arguer can convince me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely.强调样本的不同以及处理方法不一致
In the third place, even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, the arguer just simply assumes that sugar pills don't resist the patients recovering and neither any conclusive scientific evidence not any anecdotal evidence is provided to affirm this assumption. It is reasonable to doubt that what the arguer assumes will not happen in reality. It is just as possible that the sugar pills resist the patients recovering. To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer must explain either why none of these alternatives is available or why none of them is able to sustain.提出SUGAR PILLS的作用
To sum up, the arguer's argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.
其实说实话，我觉得这篇挺好的，和我提的逻辑错误差不多，文字流畅，有些小语法错误。
多练几篇应该在语言表达上会更加流利，加油

dodoluluUID: 2641270

简单修改了一下，虽然那么的模版，好歹是第一篇a
In this argument, the arguer advocates that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Although this argument might seem reasonable at first glance, it is in fact ill-conceived. The reasons are stated as follows.
In the first place, the arguer assumes that the secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case, and the arguer does not supply any evidence to confirm this assumption. It is quite possible that the secondary infections won't happen. To illustrate this point clearly, let us take a look at the following representative example. Maybe the secondary infections don't happen to the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain, or these patients are hard to have secondary infections. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other alternative explanations, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.
In the second place, the arguer assumes that antibiotics soon put these patients to rights. Although this is entirely possible, the auger offers no evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is very likely that other facts put these patients to rights soon. An appropriate example is not very far to seek. Maybe the first group's patients are more healthier than the second group's so they recovery from sickness soon, or the doctor who specializes in sports medicine is better at treat muscle strain than the general physician. The arguer's reasoning is definitely flawed unless the arguer can convince me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely.
In the third place, even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, the arguer just simply assumes that sugar pills don't resist the patients recovering and neither any conclusive scientific evidence not any anecdotal evidence is provided to affirm this assumption. It is reasonable to doubt that what the arguer assumes will not happen in reality. It is just as possible that the sugar pills resist the patients recovering. To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer must explain either why none of these alternatives is available or why none of them is able to sustain.
To sum up, the arguer's argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.

leopard2009UID: 2596872

In this argument, the arguer advocates that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Although this argument might seem reasonable at first glance, it is in fact ill-conceived. The reasons are stated as follows.
In the first place, the arguer assumes that the secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case, and the arguer does not supply any evidence to confirm this assumption. It is quite possible that the secondary infections won't happen. To illustrate this point clearly, let us take a look at the following representative example. Maybe the secondary infections don't happen to the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain, or these patients are hard to have secondary infections. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other alternative explanations, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.
个人感觉这段的论述应该放在后面一点哈
In the second place, the arguer assumes that antibiotics soon put these patients to rights\heal these patients. Although this is entirely\去掉好一些 possible, the auger offers no evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is very likely that other facts put these patients to rights soon. An appropriate example is not very far to seek. Maybe the first group's patients are more healthier than the second group's so they recovery from sickness soon, or the doctor who specializes in sports medicine is better at treat muscle strain than the general physician. The arguer's reasoning is definitely flawed unless the arguer can convince me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely.
In the third place, even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, the arguer just simply assumes that sugar pills don't resist the patients recovering and neither any conclusive scientific evidence not\nor any anecdotal evidence is provided to affirm this assumption. It is reasonable to doubt that what the arguer assumes will not happen in reality. It is just as possible that the sugar pills resist the patients recovering. To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer must explain either why none of these alternatives is available or why none of them is able to sustain.
To sum up, the arguer's argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.
不错哈，注意论点的顺序，可以看看精华版里面的一些文章，继续努力哈

dodoluluUID: 2641270

小修改一下

In this argument, the arguer advocates that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Although this argument might seem reasonable at first glance, it is in fact ill-conceived. The reasons are stated as follows.
In the first place, the arguer assumes that the secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case, and the arguer does not supply any evidence to confirm this assumption. It is quite possible that the secondary infections won't happen. To illustrate this point clearly, let us take a look at the following representative example. Maybe the secondary infections don't happen to the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain, or these patients are hard to have secondary infections. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other alternative explanations, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.
In the second place, the arguer assumes that antibiotics soon heal these patients. Although this is possible, the auger offers no evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is very likely that other facts heal these patients soon. An appropriate example is not very far to seek. Maybe the first group's patients are more healthier than the second group's so they recovery from sickness soon, or the doctor who specializes in sports medicine is better at treat muscle strain than the general physician. The arguer's reasoning is definitely flawed unless the arguer can convince me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely.
In the third place, even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, the arguer just simply assumes that sugar pills don't resist the patients recovering and neither any conclusive scientific evidence nor any anecdotal evidence is provided to affirm this assumption. It is reasonable to doubt that what the arguer assumes will not happen in reality. It is just as possible that the sugar pills resist the patients recovering. To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer must explain either why none of these alternatives is available or why none of them is able to sustain.
To sum up, the arguer's argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.

houpei0126UID: 2643060

In this argument, the arguer advocates that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Although this argument might seem reasonable at first glance, it is in fact ill-conceived. The reasons are stated as follows.
In the first place, the arguer assumes that the secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case, and the arguer does not supply any evidence to confirm this assumption. It is quite possible that the secondary infections won't happen. To illustrate this point clearly, let us take a look at the following representative example. Maybe the secondary infections don't (didn’t) happen to the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain, or these patients are hard to have secondary infections. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other alternative explanations, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.
In the second place, the arguer assumes that antibiotics soon heal these patients. Although this is possible, the auger offers no evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is very likely that other facts heal these patients soon. An appropriate example is not very far to seek. Maybe the first group's patients are more (去掉)healthier than the second group's so they recovery from sickness soon, or the doctor who specializes in sports medicine is better at treat muscle strain than the general physician. The arguer's reasoning is definitely flawed unless the arguer can convince me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely.(这句很不错)In the third place, even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, the arguer just simply assumes that sugar pills don't resist the patients recovering and neither any conclusive scientific evidence nor any anecdotal evidence is provided to affirm this assumption. It is reasonable to doubt that what the arguer assumes will not happen in reality. It is just as possible that the sugar pills resist the patients recovering. To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer must explain either why none of these alternatives is available or why none of them is able to sustain.
To sum up, the arguer's argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.
总体来说很不错，语言的运用也很巧妙，娴熟。赞一个~~
分析的错误方面很多，或许有些可以在深入一些。加油啊