Argument 51@@A Dream @@ 小组第六次作业by kren_crazy

kren_crazyUID: 2623887

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."



In the argument above, the experiment given by the author to support the hypothesis which claims the secondary infections prevent the healing of muscle strain. And the author also asserts from the two group of experiment that taking antibiotics helps heal the muscle strain. Without scrutinizing it carefully, it seems reasonable. However, it is not telling the truth.


Firstly, the main contradiction between the author's assertion and the two groups of the experiments is that the experiment cannot support the hypothesis, which suspects that the secondary infections prevent the heal of the muscle strain. Because in the experiments the doctors failed to set the groups of experiments that have overuse the amount of the antibiotics, which are necessary to be set to substantiate the hypothesis.

Secondly, the severity of the patients suffered by the muscle strain in the two different groups is not given, which is the very important information that should be contain in this experiment. If the two groups of the patients have the different situation, such as the first group of patients suffered less terrible muscle strain than the second group. In this circumstance, it can not make a conclusion if the antibiotics really function well in the experiment. Because it is obvious that even without the antibiotics the first group of patients recuperation quickly.

Thirdly, the number of the patients should be included in this experiment. Too small amount of the experiment samples makes the result occasional. Take only two samples in the experiment for example, if one of them in the first group naturally owned more powerful immune system than the other person in the second group, it makes the result inconvincible either. It could not be judged that it is the antibiotics make the first patient heal quickly. It is impossible that his own immune system make the biggest contribution to his recuperation. As a result, the proper number of the experiment samples is necessarily needed in this experiment.

Lastly, before advising all the patients with the muscle strain to be diagnosed the antibiotics. It needs to concern the problem if the antibiotics may cause the allergic for some patients.

In sum, in order to make the argument persuasible the author should present the more scientific experiments in stead of the groups of experiments presented in this argument to support his view. And in the more scientific experiments the author should mention to add the contrast group of patients who overused the antibiotics. In addition, the more scientific experiment should explicate the similar precondition such as the similar severity of patients in each group as well as the similar level of the inner immune system. The large of samples in the experiment are also needed to exclude the occasions.

小小amyUID: 2541111

In the argument above, the experiment given by the author to support the hypothesis which claims the secondary infections prevent the healing of muscle strain. And the author also asserts from the two group experiments that taking antibiotics helps healing the muscle strain. Without scrutinizing it carefully, it seems reasonable. However, it is not telling the truth.总的开头给出观点，感觉上最后一句才是重点，前面是复述题目有凑字数嫌疑……（别打我，我觉得你水平个么高的，要苛刻点）


Firstly, the main contradiction between the author's assertion and the two groups of the experiments is that the experiment cannot support the hypothesis, which suspects that the secondary infections prevent the heal (healing) of the muscle strain. Because in the experiments the doctors failed to（didn’t consider to） set the groups of experiments that have overuse the amount of the antibiotics（主线）, which are（is） necessary to be set to substantiate the hypothesis. 提出自己的论点，点出题目中的试验应该有的实验对照组。
Secondly, the severity of the patients suffered by the muscle strain in the
（去掉） two different groups is not given, which is the very（要么a very要么the most） important information
（factor） that should be contain in this experiment. If the two groups of the patients (语感上感觉 the patients of two groups更好,不改也ok啦) have the different situation（the去掉，different situations）, such as the first group of patients suffered less terrible (grievous) muscle strain than the second group (one，其实也ok，就是试试避免重复). In this circumstance, it can not make a conclusion if the antibiotics really function well in the experiment. Because it is obvious that even without the antibiotics the first group of patients recuperation (注意词性recuperate more) quickly. 指出试验的基准不同，试验缺少可比性。
Thirdly, the number of the patients should be included in this experiment. Too small amount of the experiment samples makes the result occasional. Take only two samples in the experiment for example; if one of them in the first group naturally （was born to） owned more powerful immune system（这个是才是本段主线吧？） than the other person in the second group, it makes the result inconvincible， either. It could not be judged that it is the antibiotics make the first patient heal quickly. It is impossible that his own immune system make the biggest contribution to his recuperation. As a result, the proper number of the experiment samples is necessarily needed in this experiment.
提出的又一基点是试验人数，但是你的说理却集中在病人本身健康状况……改一下吧。
Lastly, before advising all the patients with the muscle strain to be diagnosed the antibiotics. It needs to concern the problem if the antibiotics may cause the allergic for some patients. Like penicillin? 还以为你这段也会给出相对应的论述。
In sum, in order to make the argument persuasible， the author should present the（去掉，关于这个词的用法你去好好研究一下吧，老外最头疼介词乱用） more scientific experiments in stead of the groups of experiments presented in this argument to support his view. And
【in（状语通常放在句子最后，现在这样容易搞错主语） the（去掉）
more（这个也多余，加上去读不通） scientific experiments】 the author should mention to add the contrast group of patients who overused the antibiotics 【in scientific experiments】. In addition, the scientific experiment should explicate the similar precondition such as the similar severity of patients in each group as well as the similar level of the inner immune system. The large of samples in the experiment are also needed to exclude the occasions.
The ending is awesome~!