搜狗做题网GRE写一篇argument论证作文开头遇到表达困难,
来源：学生作业帮 编辑：搜狗做题网作业帮 分类：英语作业 时间：2024/07/18 07:09:44
GRE写一篇argument论证作文开头遇到表达困难,
现在要反驳一片文章讲一个电视台减少本地新闻增加国家新闻的利害,这是开头,怎么改就不对头的样子,感觉Chinglish,
In the context the arguer asserts that the impartial focus of national news more than the weather and local news has leaded to a decreasing advertising contracts with the local businesses and the restoration of the refocus on the weather and local news is required.
现在要反驳一片文章讲一个电视台减少本地新闻增加国家新闻的利害,这是开头,怎么改就不对头的样子,感觉Chinglish,
In the context the arguer asserts that the impartial focus of national news more than the weather and local news has leaded to a decreasing advertising contracts with the local businesses and the restoration of the refocus on the weather and local news is required.
"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."
下面是我写的,可能放不下,分开贴
In this argument,the arguer concludes that all patients suffering from muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.To strengthen this conclustion,the arguer cites a study of two groups of patients of muscle strain.Also the arguer provides the statistics indicating that patients taking antibiotics recovered more quickly than those taking sugar pills.At frist glance,the argument might be somewhat reasonable,however close scruntiny reveals that it contains several logical flaws and is therefore unpersuasive.
First of all,there's a false causal relationship between the hypothesis and the study.Although the hypothesis and the study are both related to muscle strain,the former claims that secondary infections could prevent patients from healing quickly while the latter investigates the active effect of antibiotics on those patients.
Second,the arguer fails to consider the possible differences between those two groups of patients,thus causes an unconvincing comparison.For example,perhaps patients of the second group primarily consist of young people while the other group of old people on the contrary.Common sense informs me that the former recovers much faster than the latter in the case of muscle strain because of hermone secretion and metabolism.Without ruling out all the other possibilities,I cannot accept the arguer's contrast of those two groups.
Third,even assuming that the study of patients from those two groups is based on the identical background,the arguer unfairly indicates a causal relation between the antibiotics and the shortend recuperation time for the first group.However,there could be some other factors such as the special rehabilitation training or some unique substance from food,only the combined application of which will lead to a quick recovery.Similarly,the potential efficacy of sugar pills could also be counteracted by other medicine.
Finally,even if the shortened recuperation time is attributalbe to the use of antibiotics for patients of the first group,the arguer overlooks the negative effects that antibiotics would bring to those patients.For instance,perhaps antibiotics might cause dizziness and influence the digestive function of patients.Or perhaps antibiotics would kill immune cells,therefore patients are more vulnerable to disease during the treatment.Without accounting for these possiblities,the arguer cannot convince me that the use of the antibiotics is a benefical recommendation.
下面是我写的,可能放不下,分开贴
In this argument,the arguer concludes that all patients suffering from muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.To strengthen this conclustion,the arguer cites a study of two groups of patients of muscle strain.Also the arguer provides the statistics indicating that patients taking antibiotics recovered more quickly than those taking sugar pills.At frist glance,the argument might be somewhat reasonable,however close scruntiny reveals that it contains several logical flaws and is therefore unpersuasive.
First of all,there's a false causal relationship between the hypothesis and the study.Although the hypothesis and the study are both related to muscle strain,the former claims that secondary infections could prevent patients from healing quickly while the latter investigates the active effect of antibiotics on those patients.
Second,the arguer fails to consider the possible differences between those two groups of patients,thus causes an unconvincing comparison.For example,perhaps patients of the second group primarily consist of young people while the other group of old people on the contrary.Common sense informs me that the former recovers much faster than the latter in the case of muscle strain because of hermone secretion and metabolism.Without ruling out all the other possibilities,I cannot accept the arguer's contrast of those two groups.
Third,even assuming that the study of patients from those two groups is based on the identical background,the arguer unfairly indicates a causal relation between the antibiotics and the shortend recuperation time for the first group.However,there could be some other factors such as the special rehabilitation training or some unique substance from food,only the combined application of which will lead to a quick recovery.Similarly,the potential efficacy of sugar pills could also be counteracted by other medicine.
Finally,even if the shortened recuperation time is attributalbe to the use of antibiotics for patients of the first group,the arguer overlooks the negative effects that antibiotics would bring to those patients.For instance,perhaps antibiotics might cause dizziness and influence the digestive function of patients.Or perhaps antibiotics would kill immune cells,therefore patients are more vulnerable to disease during the treatment.Without accounting for these possiblities,the arguer cannot convince me that the use of the antibiotics is a benefical recommendation.