The conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strainwould be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment seems at firstglace to be a convince notion. To support the conclusion the present a evidencethat one group of patients took antibiotics regularly throughout theirtreatment whose recuperation time was ,on average,40 percent quicker thantypically expected ,however another group of patients ,given sugar pills whichwere considered to antibiotics, whose recuperation time was not significantly reduced.A careful examination of the argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.
In the first place, the validity of the comparison is doubtful. Firstly,more evidence should be given in order to show the patients in two groups wererandom samples. The recuperation time of one person is not only determined bythe treatments given by doctors, but also have a strong relevancy with the patient itself. Commonsense told usthat the younger and stronger the less time would be spend and at the same timethe more serious of the illness the more recuperation time cost. However ,onecould not be prevented to assumption that the patients in the first group wereall younger , stronger and less serious than the second group. Secondly, thefallacy of the comparison leads the different treatment to the two groups. Itis apparently that the doctor of the first group who specializes in sportsmedicine would do a better job than the doctor of the other group who is ageneral physician, because not only the doctor in the first group is more professionalin treating the muscle strain but also can give essential advise on the resttime when the patients were not in hospital everyday .For example ,the doctorspecialized in sports medicine would tell the patients to wear what kinds ofthe shoes after muscle strain, or tell them what kinds of the food are notpermitted to be eaten. Whereas ,thedifferent treatment negate the validityof the comparison.
In the second place, lacking more specific information about the baseamount which is impossible to assess the reliability of the evidence.To beginwith the time that typically expected is significant important for the resultof 40 percent quicker time. If thetypically expected time is half a day or less then few hours,40 percent quickertime could be approximately ignored. In addition, the average recuperation timecan not provide strong support to the argument. Different kinds of musclestrain ,different body conditions of individuals and the amount of the groupmembers make the average recuperation time useless. If one patient in a groupwith serious and special muscle strain whose treatment cost 1 year,nevertheless the rest of the group whose amount is one ,just spend 1 day on treatment,the average time is half a year. So the statistical evidence of the comparisonis not statistical reliable.
In the third place, the author commit the fallacy of "all thingsare equal". Firstly, the author simply consider that all the reason formuscle strain and the treatment of all kinds of muscle strain are the same. Since even if we accepted that the secondary infections may keep somepatients from healing quickly after sever muscle strain, there is no evidenceto show that all the muscle strain cause a secondary infection. Secondly, the authorignore the patients who can not takeantibiotics because of the other ail of the themselves. So it is ridiculous toadvise all the patients who are diagnoed with muscle strain to take antibiotics.
To sum up ,the argument suffers from several fatal fallacies. To strengththe notion the arguer should make a credibility comparison with random and representativesamples ,the same treatment.
The conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strainwould be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment seems at firstglace to be a convince(convincing) notion. To support the conclusion the author presents a evidencethat one group of patients took antibiotics regularly throughout theirtreatment whose recuperation time was ,on average,40 percent quicker thantypically expected ,however, another group of patients ,given sugar pills whichwere considered to antibiotics, whose recuperation time was not significantly reduced.A careful examination of the argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.
In the first place, the validity of the comparison is doubtful. Firstly,more evidence should be given in order to show the patients in two groups wererandom samples. The recuperation time of one person is not only determined bythe treatments given by doctors, but also have a strong relevancy with the patient itself. Commonsense told(注意时态) usthat the younger and stronger patients are, the less time would be spend and at the same timethe more serious of the illness the more recuperation time cost. However ,onecould not be prevented to assumption that the patients in the first group wereall younger , stronger and less serious than the second group. Secondly, thefallacy of the comparison leads the different treatment to the two groups.(这句话有问题) Itis apparently(apparent) that the doctor of the first group who specializes in sportsmedicine would do a better job than the doctor of the other group who is ageneral physician, because not only the doctor in the first group is more professionalin treating the muscle strain but also can give essential advise on the resttime when the patients were not in hospital everyday .For example ,the doctorspecialized in sports medicine would tell the patients to wear what kinds ofthe shoes after muscle strain, or tell them what kinds of the food are notpermitted to be eaten. Whereas ,thedifferent treatment negate the validityof the comparison.
In the second place, lacking more specific information about the baseamount which is impossible to assess the reliability of the evidence.To beginwith the time that typically expected is significant important for the resultof 40 percent quicker time. If thetypically expected time is half a day or less then few hours,40 percent quickertime could be approximately ignored. In addition, the average recuperation timecan not provide strong support to the argument. Different kinds of musclestrain ,different body conditions of individuals and the amount of the groupmembers make the average recuperation time useless. If one patient in a groupwith serious and special muscle strain whose treatment cost 1 year,nevertheless the rest of the group whose amount is one ,just spend 1 day on treatment,the average time is half a year. So the statistical evidence of the comparisonis not statistical reliable.
In the third place, the author commit the fallacy of "all thingsare equal". Firstly, the author simply consider that all the reason formuscle strain and the treatment of all kinds of muscle strain are the same. Since even if we accepted that the secondary infections may keep somepatients from healing quickly after sever muscle strain, there is no evidenceto show that all the muscle strain cause a secondary infection. Secondly, the authorignore the patients who can not takeantibiotics because of the other ail of the themselves. So it is ridiculous toadvise all the patients who are diagnoed with muscle strain to take antibiotics.
To sum up ,the argument suffers from several fatal fallacies. To strengththe notion the arguer should make a credibility(credible) comparison with random and representativesamples ,the same treatment.(结尾太短了吧)