[a习作temp] Argument 51后天就要考了,好慌的....大家给点意见吧.... [复制链接]

lovi
UID：2600885

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 18
注册时间: 2009-2-10
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-3-7 16:09:27 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

谢谢大家！！然后……我还有几个问题……
一、一篇文章漏洞有很多的时候，是不是不用全写的？
二、开头和结尾，需不需要写得很详细？例如我这篇开头，就是把40%恢复的快也写上去，能不能直接写Dr.N的病人恢复的比Dr.A的快呢？
三、大家用什么方法减压……我觉得越写越僵了........

TOPIC: 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."

In this argument, the author recommends all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain taking antibiotics as part of their treatment, for the reason that the antibiotics could help prevent them from secondary infections which may keep them from healing quickly. To justify these assertions, the author cites an analogy between two groups treated respectively by Dr. Newland and Dr. Alton, pointing out that the 40 percent of Dr. Newland's group members recover more quickly than typically expected while Dr. Alton's group members' average recuperation time is not significantly reduced. However, this argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions which render it unconvincing as it stands.

(错误类比)
First of all, one problem with the argument is that the author primarily relies on an analogy between Dr. Newland' group and Dr. Alton's group, and then concludes that antibiotics work efficiently in treating muscle strain. However, the author fails to consider possible differences between these two group members which might bring about this result. Perhaps patients of the first group are mild injured while the second group members suffer from serious muscle strains. Or perhaps this disparity in recuperation time is due to some congenital factors, rather than the effectiveness of antibiotics. Besides, common sense informs me that Dr. Newland is better than Dr. Alton in treating sports injuries because of his specialization. Therefore, the author cannot justifiably conclude that it is the antibiotics that help patients of the first group recover more quickly than those of the second group.

（未发现药换，无证据）
Secondly, the author preposterously assumes that patients of the second group do not realize that their medication is replaced by sugar pills, yet provides no evidence to verify it. However, it is entirely possible that the patients have noticed this change and their recovery abilities are influenced by their psychological effect, but they do not tell Dr. Alton. If so, the author cannot defend the assertion that they still believe that they are taking antibiotics.
（未说明二次感染）
Thirdly, the author fallaciously assumes that the result of the study could substantiate the hypothesis, which implies that the secondary infections may prevent patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. However, the consequence of the study proves nothing about this hypothesis, because it does not show that these patients are suffered from secondary infections. Considering the author does not provide enough evidence, I simply cannot agree on this point.

（负面作用）
Finally, even I concede that antibiotics do work efficiently in treating muscle strain, however, the author's recommendation that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take it as part of their treatment remains problematic. On one hand, maybe it is not necessary for all patients, for the reason that some of them do not suffer from secondary infection. On the other hand, as a matter of fact, the author ignores the negative effects that antibiotics might bring about. Common sense informs me that over taking this kind of medication will make patients more vulnerable to illness. Therefore, the author should modify this recommendation so that it could target the purpose.

To sum up, the author's conclusion about the effectiveness of antibiotics on treating muscle strain is not well supported. To bolster it, the author should provide more scientific evidence to show that antibiotics will be effective to all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain without negative effects. To better evaluate the recommendation, we would need more information about the possible dissimilarities between the two groups. Moreover, adequate evidence should also be given to show that the second group members do not realize their prescription replaced by sugar pills.

Argument, 意见