argument51 [076g--背水一战小组]duduhaha的文章，求拍。

duduhahaUID: 2273118

51. 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."

医生长期以来怀疑严重肌肉扭伤后的二次感染妨碍了一些患者迅速康复。这一假说现在被一项对两组患者的研究的初步结果所证实。第一组患者全部由专攻运动医学的Dr. Newland治疗肌肉损伤，他们在疗程中经常服用抗生素。他们的康复期平均比通常预期的快40％。第二组患者由综合医师Dr. Alton治疗，他们被给予糖丸，而患者相信他们在服用抗生素。他们的平均康复时间没有明显缩短。因此，任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗。

提纲：
1. 病人情况可能有差异。
2. 医生情况可能有差异。
3. 不能轻易得出所有病人都服用抗生素的建议。

The argument, although well-reasoned, is not completely well-presented. By giving out a study of two groups of patients with muscle strain, the arguer draws out  a conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. This conclusion seems logical at first glance, but is unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer fails to give any detailed information about the personal conditions of the patients in two groups. Perhaps the patients are not chosen
by randomness so that the patients in the first group may be younger and with lighter injuries. If so, it's possible that antibiotics offers less help to patients with muscle strain. In addition, in the study, it's the average recuperation time that is quicker than typically expected. In other words, some patients may recover quicker than expected and some others may recover slower than normal conditions in this study. It's not a wise choice if we just turn a blind eye to the latter, who may suffer from the antibiotics.

Secondly, the two groups were treated by different doctors, and one specializes in sports medicine whereas the other is only a general physician. So it's probably different when it comes to the process they treat the patients. Perhaps because Dr.Newland is a sports medicine expert, he also gave other special treatments to hispatients, which is the key factor for the shorter recovery time. Thus, the conclusion that taking antibiotics will do good to the healing of muscle injury is unconvinced.

Thirdly, even if antibiotics will take effect in the healing of the patients with muscle strain in the study, we couldn't get to the arguer's conclusion that all patients like this  should be advised to take antibiotics. It makes no sense of drawing conclusions from one part like this. The arguer overlooks the possible side-effect that might be brought by the antibiotics, which is a common situation for almost all the medicines. Also there are maybe some patients who are allergic to the antibiotics. Without taking all these situations into account, we can't agree with the arguer's conclusion.

In sum, the argument lacks the credibility since the evidence and assumption do not lend strong support to what the  arguer claims. To make it more convincing, the arguer  should supply more detailed information about the patients and the doctors.

tongwawawUID: 2176887

:funk:

tongwawawUID: 2176887

The argument, although well-reasoned, is not completely well-presented.(!!!The argument, although well presented, is not totally/thoroughly/completely well reasoned!!!要改！！我的那篇写颠倒啦，这个问题很严重！！！alarm！！） By giving out（citing） a study of two groups of patients with muscle strain, the arguer draws out （删） a conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. This conclusion seems logical at first glance, but is unconvincing as it stands.
这个开头是我照一个ets的6分范文改写的～
To begin with, the arguer fails to give any detailed information about the personal conditions of the patients in two groups. Perhaps the patients are not chosen by randomness so that the patients in the first group may be younger and with lighter（less sever） injuries. If so, it's possible that antibiotics offers less help to patients with muscle strain.（因为young或者受伤不严重所以antibiotic就不好使？这是什么推理？youth对antibiotic不敏感？受伤轻所以感染轻？） In addition, in the study, it's the average recuperation time that is quicker than typically expected. In other words, some patients may recover quicker than expected and some others may recover slower than normal conditions in this study. It's not a wise choice if we just turn a blind eye to the latter, who may suffer from the antibiotics.（没看懂～）

Secondly, the two groups were treated by different doctors, and one specializes in sports medicine whereas the other is only a general physician. So it's probably different when it comes to the process they treat the patients. Perhaps because Dr.Newland is a sports medicine expert, he also gave other special treatments to hispatients, which is the key factor for the shorter recovery time. Thus, the conclusion that taking antibiotics will do good to the healing of muscle injury is unconvinced.

Thirdly, even if antibiotics will take effect in the healing of the patients with muscle strain in the study, we couldn't get to the arguer's conclusion that all patients like this  should be advised to take antibiotics. It makes no sense of drawing conclusions from one part like this.（重复前一句，是废话） The arguer overlooks the possible side-effect that might be brought by the antibiotics, which is a common situation for almost all the medicines.（你首句观点是不适用所有病人，你这句说有副作用要干什么？） Also there are maybe some patients who are allergic to the antibiotics.（这句也不能支持的观点） Without taking all these situations into account, we can't agree with the arguer's conclusion.

In sum, the argument lacks the credibility since the evidence and assumption do not lend strong support to what the  arguer claims. To make it more convincing, the arguer  should supply more detailed information about the patients and the doctors.

[ 本帖最后由 tongwawaw 于 2007-3-6 05:23 编辑 ]

tongwawawUID: 2176887

感觉你的argument问题比较大！加油！

[ 本帖最后由 tongwawaw 于 2007-3-6 05:14 编辑 ]