argument51 [SJTU-ETB6 10G] 第二次作业

dacgileUID: 2367722

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: 405         

By comparing two groups of patients who are treated with different methods on their muscle strain, the author reaches the conclusion that patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of treatment. Close scrutiny of the argument, however, reveals that it is logically flawed in several respects, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, contributing the shorter recuperation time of the first group to the use of antibiotics is open to question. In the treating process, nothing can guarantee that antibiotics was the medicine resulting to the shorter healing time, maybe other medicines which can make time shorter are used only were used. Also, except for the medicine, other factors-- such as good treating conditions, good tend from families, and the like-- was likely to boost the healing time. Because patients with better treating conditions are surely less possible to get infections, and with better tend they are likely to be happier in the mood and have good nutrition to heal quickly. Without ruling out these reasons, the reasoning is not convincing.

Furthermore, results of the second group can say nothing. Although patients in second group did not take antibiotics, their average recuperation time did not increase. In other words, even if without antibiotics their physical condition did not go worse. Perhaps, treatment from Dr. Alton was not so good to let them heal quicker; it is possible that if taking better treatment they may also had shorter recuperation.

Last and the most important, even if assuming that treatment with antibiotics is the reason for shorter healing time in the first group, still the author cannot draw the conclusion. One basic principle when making an experiment is to give the same experiment condition on the control group. The author say nothing about the treating conditions of the two groups, what is more, even the doctors were not the same. These conditions can affect the result deeply. In addition, no information can even guarantee the patients who got muscle strain were under the same physical condition, if physical condition with patients in the second group is much poorer than in the first group, the result makes nonsense.

In conclusion, the argument is nor persuasive. To buttress it, the author should provide more information on the study itself; to better it, also, the author should consider other possible alternatives for the result; moreover, several studies are needed indeed to demonstrate the hypothesis.

zhangjunhaoUID: 2276310

By comparing two groups of patients who are treated with different methods on their muscle strain, the author reaches the conclusion that patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of treatment. Close scrutiny of the argument, however, reveals that it is logically flawed in several respects, which render it unconvincing as it stands.（我觉得这样的开头很好，不过不知道其他的开头能不能也这样写，还是和题目有关）

To begin with, contributing the shorter recuperation time of the first group to the use of antibiotics is open to question. In the treating process, nothing can guarantee that antibiotics was the medicine resulting to the shorter healing time, maybe other medicines which can make time shorter are used only were used. Also, except for the medicine, other factors-- such as good treating conditions, good tend from families, and the like-- was likely to boost the healing time. Because patients with better treating conditions are surely less possible to get infections, and with better tend they are likely to be happier in the mood and have good nutrition to heal quickly. Without ruling out these reasons, the reasoning is not convincing.

Furthermore, results of the second group can say nothing. Although patients in second group did not take antibiotics, their average recuperation time did not increase. In other words, even if without antibiotics their physical condition did not go worse. Perhaps, treatment from Dr. Alton was not so good to let them heal quicker; it is possible that if taking better treatment they may also had shorter recuperation.（这段是想论证第二组的病人不一定会二次感染即使没有吃抗生素）

Last and the most important, even if assuming that treatment with antibiotics is the reason for shorter healing time in the first group, still the author cannot draw the conclusion. One basic principle when making an experiment is to give the same experiment condition on the control group. The author say nothing about the treating conditions of the two groups, what is more, even the doctors were not the same. These conditions can affect the result deeply. In addition, no information can even guarantee the patients who got muscle strain were under the same physical condition, if physical condition with patients in the second group is much poorer than in the first group, the result makes nonsense.（我觉得这个逻辑错误应该安排在第一段反驳，因为这个错误应该是前提条件把）

In conclusion, the argument is nor persuasive. To buttress it, the author should provide more information on the study itself; to better it, also, the author should consider other possible alternatives for the result; moreover, several studies are needed indeed to demonstrate the hypothesis.

写得不错，如果能把错误批判顺序改一下应该会更好，继续努力把。 注：我这里不知道为什么不能选择字体颜色，只能用黑色改了，请见谅。