ARGUMENT51 【OB小组】第3次作业－stonescj－二次感染吃抗生素

stonescjUID: 2359180

51 二次感染吃抗生素问题
1.前提有误，没有证据说二次感染一定会发生，发生机率是多少？
2.survey 没有说服力
3.没有说明抗生素一定会治疗病人，可能 还有副作用
The editorial is not suasive as it presumes that the stated correlation implies causation, which is not necessary the case. The arguer asserts that all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment to prevent secondary infections. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical logic flaws as follows.

To begin with, the dependability of the precondition is open to doubt. Doctors are merely suspect that the probability that secondary infections may cumber some patients from recovering fast after serious muscle strain. There is not any complement evidence and statistic to support the hypothesis. Maybe the ratio of the patients who suffer from secondary infections is scarce, since secondary infections only befallen on the severe muscle strain patients. Maybe the patients who are trouble in secondary infection are not due to muscle strain but other problems. Without ruling out those possible factors, it is groundless to put out the prediction so early.

Furthermore, even if we conceded that there is in fact creditable about the precondition, it is also dubitable about the survey. In the above investigation, two groups’ patients are questionable, because the patients’ ages, genders, backgrounds and healthy status are omitted in this editorial. Maybe the sample in Dr.Newland's group are universal youthful than Dr.Alton's group, the immunity and healing ability is inevitable higher. Maybe the patients in first group are almost athletes, which muscle structure is very different from that of other common people, obviously, their recuperation time is shorter than ordinary person. It is also possible that the two doctors' experience and therapy technology influence the recuperation time. Consequently, the inquisition can not serve as a cogent evidence for the argument.

Finally, even if we presume that the veracity of the research, this does not means that the patients should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. It is still blurry about the functional mechanism of antibiotics, and there is not any side-effect report of antibiotics to the public. Maybe the dose of the medicine would arouse different problems, it require a lot of clinic experiment before eliciting the conclusion. Failing to figure out this peradventure, the arguer can not make such a affirmative conclusion that the patients should take antibiotics.

To sum up, it is necessary to spread extensive and convincing analysis and evidence to come to the conclusion that the necessity of taking antibiotic medicine. The arguer fails to do it.

stonescjUID: 2359180

自己先顶一下~怎么没人改改呢？:o

pesticideUID: 2359145

The editorial is not suasive as it presumes that the stated correlation implies causation, which is not necessary the case. The arguer asserts that all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment to prevent secondary infections. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical logic flaws as follows.

To begin with, the dependability(reliability更常用) of the precondition is open to doubt. Doctors are merely suspect that the probability that secondary infections may cumber some patients from recovering fast after serious muscle strain. There is not any complement evidence(complementary evidence ) and statistic to support the hypothesis. Maybe the ratio of the patients who suffer from secondary infections is scarce, since secondary infections only befallen on the severe muscle strain patients. Maybe the patients who are trouble in secondary infection are not due to muscle strain but other problems. Without ruling out those possible factors, it is groundless to put out the prediction so early.

Furthermore, even if we conceded that there is in fact creditable about the precondition, it is also dubitable about the survey. In the above investigation, two groups’ patients are questionable, because the patients’ ages, genders, backgrounds and healthy status(health status) are omitted in this editorial. Maybe the sample in Dr.Newland's group are universal youthful than Dr.Alton's group, the immunity and healing ability is inevitable higher. Maybe the patients in first group are almost athletes, which muscle structure is very different from that of other common people, obviously, their recuperation time is shorter than ordinary person. It is also possible that the two doctors' experience and therapy technology influence the recuperation time. Consequently, the inquisition can not serve as a cogent evidence for the argument.

Finally, even if we presume that the veracity of the research, this does not means that the patients should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. It is still blurry about the functional mechanism of antibiotics, and there is not any side-effect report of antibiotics to the public. Maybe the dose of the medicine would arouse different problems, it require a lot of clinic experiment before eliciting the conclusion. Failing to figure out this peradventure, the arguer can not make such a affirmative conclusion that the patients should take antibiotics.

To sum up, it is necessary to spread extensive and convincing analysis and evidence to come to the conclusion that the necessity of taking antibiotic medicine. The arguer fails to do it.

层次分明，衔接较好，论证有力，且用词讲究。

[ 本帖最后由 pesticide 于 2007-7-16 17:49 编辑 ]