标题: 【big fish】 习作1.3 Argument51 by rachelwang712 [打印本页] 作者: rachelwang712 时间: 2010-2-24 19:38:22 标题: 【big fish】 习作1.3 Argument51 by rachelwang712
51The 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 newsletter, the author cites a survey to prove his point that antibiotics accelerate recovery from muscle injuries by preventing secondary infections. However, the survey itself has several flaws in its failure to mention the difference in samples and skills of doctors which may affect its congency to a large extent, hus undermining his argument.
To begin with, it should be noticed that not just antibiotics may count for the quicker recovery but also the original difference between the two groups is likely to play a role. To be exact, it is possible that the first group suffer a much slighter injury than the other one. Also chances are that the second group of patients are mainly blue-collar workers who have to do a great amount of physical work and can't get a good rest for recovery. On top of that, what may influence the results as well is the skills of the two doctors. If Dr. Newland is more experienced and excellent than Dr. Alton, there should be no surprise his patients recover faster than those of Dr. Alton. Actually without adequate information about the two groups, no necessary correlation can be established between their disparity in healing process and whether they take antibiotics or not.
Furthermore, even for those who did not take antibiotics, it doesn't necessarily mean that they got secondary infections. Had no one shown sign of being infected, though they had not taken antibiotics, surely their healing had nothing to do with secondary infections. As a consequent, the author is expected to provide such information for his conclusion to be convincing enough.
Finally, while the assumption raised concerns about patients of "severe" muscle strains, not a word is mentioned as to whether injuries of the surveyed patients are mild or serious. Perhaps their muscle strains are so slight that even if antibiotics play a critical role in helping them heal, the hypothesis can still not be proved.
To sum up, the newsletter is weakened a lot by its ignorance of difference in the two groups, the severance of their injuries and the fact that not taking antibiotics doesn't absolutely lead to secondary infections. With all these flaws, the argument is quite lean.作者: jenius4869 时间: 2010-2-25 14:11:49
In the newsletter, the author cites a survey to prove his point that antibiotics accelerate recovery from muscle injuries by preventing secondary infections.(我觉得作者更加直接的point是建议所有muscle strain的人用抗生素) However, the survey itself has several flaws in its failure to mention the difference in samples and skills of doctors which may affect its congency to a large extent, hus undermining his argument. （下文论述的不只这方面，是不是最好再加句话说还有其他理由，不一定说出来具体什么理由，但我觉得还是要有，否则作为第一段别人误会你只要说这一点）
To begin with, it should be noticed that not just antibiotics may count for the quicker recovery but also the original difference between the two groups is likely to play a role. To be exact, it is possible that the first group suffer a much slighter injury than the other one. Also chances are that the second group of patients are mainly blue-collar workers who have to do a great amount of physical work and can't get a good rest for recovery. On top of that, what may influence the results as well is the skills of the two doctors. If Dr. Newland is more experienced and excellent than Dr. Alton, there should be no surprise his patients recover faster than those of Dr. Alton. Actually without adequate information about the two groups, no necessary correlation can be established between their disparity in healing process and whether they take antibiotics or not. （这段我看是没什么问题啦）
Furthermore, even for those who did not take antibiotics, it doesn't necessarily mean that they got secondary infections. Had no one shown sign of being infected,（倒装蛮高级的 呵呵） though they had not taken antibiotics, surely their healing had nothing to do with secondary infections. （这句话的意思和逻辑关系作者可不可以解释一下，我有点乱~）As a consequent, the author is expected to provide such information for his conclusion to be convincing enough.（这段有点简单，可以说得再细一点，按你的提纲，我觉得思路应该是第二组病人可能根本没有二次感染，那抗生素对他们也就没什么用了，第一组恢复得快就可能完全是其他原因或者说muscle strain跟二次感染没关系，第二组病人没用抗生素，第一组病人用了抗生素，就算抗生素有用，但他们不一定都是二次感染的问题，可能muscle strain 并不一定导致二次感染，第一组恢复的快可能是因为本来就没有二次感染，文章开头也只是说二次感染可能会使恢复慢。额，有点子乱，觉得这里有两个因果关系不一定成立，一个是muscle strain会有二次感染，然后抗生素可以治疗二次感染。第一个不成立，就推不到第二个，不知道这样说对不对。
Finally, while the assumption raised concerns about patients of "severe" muscle strains, not a word is mentioned as to whether injuries of the surveyed patients are mild or serious. Perhaps their muscle strains are so slight that even if antibiotics play a critical role in helping them heal, the hypothesis can still not be proved.
To sum up, the newsletter is weakened a lot by its ignorance of difference in the two groups, the severance of their injuries and the fact that not taking antibiotics doesn't absolutely lead to secondary infections. With all these flaws, the argument is quite lean.