Argument51 （球拍+有拍有回）

kevin0912UID: 2525323

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 this argument, the arguer concludes that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that doctor have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients of severe muscle strain from healing quickly. In addition, the arguer reasons that the hypothesis has been proved by results of study of two groups of patients. Close analysis of each these facts, however, reveals that none of them provide credible support to the argument.

First, the author assumes that secondary infection would happen after muscle strain. Yet the argument fails to substantiate this assumption. The author overlooks other possibilities that muscle strain would not cause secondary infection in most of time. It is possible that most muscle strain would not cause secondary infection; in this situation, taking any antibiotic pills is not necessary. Without giving evidence that how many percent of muscle strain patients are actually suffered from secondary infection, the author cannot convince me that antibiotics would help patients heal quickly.

Second, the argument provides an incomplete comparison. The incomplete comparison that results of a study of two groups is a misleading assertion that could not be tested. Perhaps Dr. Newland is more professional than Dr. Alan since Dr. Newland specializes in sport medicine but Dr. Alan is just general physician. Maybe Dr. Newland’s treatment of muscle strain is more effective than Dr. Alan’s. Perhaps the seriousness of muscle strain between the two group of patients is huge different. It is possible that muscle strains of the patients in Dr. Newland’s group are less severe than those in Dr. Alan’s group. Therefore, providing merely the incomplete information without an all-around comparison showing that all the conditions are the same except for the pill, the author can not convince me effectively.

Last, the author unfairly assumes the feasibility of the conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics. Because antibiotics known as the treatment of infection, would probably cause other problems, like trigger other illnesses or abuse antibiotics. Until the author provides other evidence to exclude all these concerns, it is groundless to advise all patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics.

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between antibiotics and muscle strain healing. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide evidence that how many percent of the muscle strain patients actually have the secondary infections. To evaluate the argument, we would need more information about under the same doctor, the same patients, and the same other conditions, antibiotics would help patients heal quickly.

wssyq1989UID: 2562864

点错了。。。
我想评你的的。。。没点好。。我是小白。。
马上贴上来

wssyq1989UID: 2562864

In this argument, the arguer concludes that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that doctor have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients of severe muscle strain from healing quickly. In addition, the arguer reasons that the hypothesis has been proved by results of study of two groups of patients. Close analysis of each these facts, however, reveals that none of them provide credible support to the argument.(大哥，您这样套新东方的模板，一词不该会死的很惨的。所有关键字都应该换掉！！！！！)

Firstly, the author assumes that secondary infection would happen after muscle strain. Yet the argument fails to substantiate this assumption. The author overlooks other possibilities that muscle strain would not cause secondary infection in most of time. It is possible that most muscle strain would not cause secondary infection; in this situation, taking any antibiotic pills is not necessary. Without giving evidence that how many percent of muscle strain patients are actually suffered from secondary infection, the author cannot convince me that antibiotics would help patients heal quickly.

Secondly, the argument provides an incomplete comparison. The incomplete comparison that results of a study of two groups is a misleading assertion that could not be tested. Perhaps Dr. Newland is more professional than Dr. Alan since Dr. Newland specializes in sport medicine but Dr. Alan is just general physician. Maybe Dr. Newland’s treatment of muscle strain is more effective than Dr. Alan’s.(可发展下，到底在那些方面可能会出现差异？例如可能会多一些理疗，或是专业护理。) Perhaps the seriousness of muscle strain between the two group of patients is huge（这个词。。。比较恶心..换了吧）different. It is possible that muscle strains of the patients in Dr. Newland’s group are less severe than those in Dr. Alan’s group. Therefore, providing merely the incomplete information without an all-around comparison showing that all the conditions are the same except for the pill, the author can not convince me effectively.

Lastly, the author unfairly assumes the feasibility of the conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics. Because antibiotics known as the treatment of infection, would probably cause other problems, like trigger other illnesses or abuse antibiotics. Until the author provides other evidence to exclude all these concerns, it is groundless to advise all patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics.（其实这一片作为经典的survey的argument是有很多错好批的，药的副作用个人建议不要很批啊，珍惜笔墨，放在重点错误上）

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between antibiotics and muscle strain healing. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide evidence that how many percent of the muscle strain patients actually have the secondary infections. To evaluate the argument, we would need more information about under the same doctor, the same patients, and the same other conditions, antibiotics would help patients heal quickly.（您是不是新东方刚毕业啊，貌似你的模板和讲义上的第一个差不多。。。真的。。。这样会死的。。。rp不好的话，和别人出现几句整句一样。。。您就不用考了。。。写再好都3.5）

总体感觉作者批的很紧，放不开。。。。
（A）Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain----
（B）Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."

个人建议可以将A到B中的错误放第一条，貌似老美习惯将重要的错放在前面。
这样大的逻辑主线是              A无法推知B
                            即使A能推知B，给的survey也无法证明A
最最关键就是你的模板竟然一点点都没换！！！楼主，您想活命的话。。。换掉模板里的词吧。。。

wssyq1989UID: 2562864

话说楼主您看到小弟辛辛苦苦的回复后，给我加个声望吧。。不然我的作文没人改。。。