[a习作temp] ARGU 51 求拍 [复制链接]

APEPKUSS
UID: 2573203

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 95
注册时间: 2008-11-18
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-8-5 22:43:11 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

请大家多拍拍，诚恳求拍！

ARGU 51 (words: 595)

The speaker argues thatantibiotics are of a significant benefit to the treatment of the patients withmuscle strains, so that all these patients should take antibiotics in theirtreatment. To bolster the argument, the speaker provides a study in which twogroups of patients with muscle stain are treated respectively by differentdoctors. The study indicates that one group taking antibiotics during thetreatment spends much less time on recovery than the other group. I find thespeaker’s arguments specious in several respects.

Firstly, the premise ofthe speaker’s arguments is not necessarily valid. The speaker simply believesthat there exists some kind of cause-effect relationship between muscle strainand secondary infections, namely the patients of muscle strain will benecessarily suffering from secondary infections. Yet, the speakers do notprovide any evidence to support his/her premise at all. Therefore, if thespeaker cannot give some strong evidence, such as scientific data, to show thatmuscle strain must result in secondary infections, the speaker would fail toconvince me the result of the study that taking antibiotics should be part ofthe treatment.

Even if we admit thepremise that the patients of muscle strains are unavoidably suffering fromsecondary infections, the study the speaker stated above is unconvincing. First,according to the speaker, there are two groups of people attending the study. Thespeaker, however, does not give the detailed statistic data about the participants,such as age, gender, health conditions, and so on. Therefore, even if the firstgroup of patients taking antibiotics regularly recover much faster than thesecond group, we cannot to be sure that antibiotics have any effect on thetreatment in muscle strain. Second, the difference of the specialization of thetwo doctors taking part in the study could affect the result of the study. Adoctor specializing in sports maybe has much more knowledge about musclestructures of human body than an average physician. It is possible that such adifference in their knowledge and skills leads to the difference in the time ofrecuperation. Thus, it is difficult for me to believe that it is theantibiotics that are conducive to much less time for treatment. Furthermore,according to the speaker, the second group of patients takes some kind of sugarpills during their treatment. Whereas, the speaker provides no evidence to showthat such sugar pills have no side effects on the treatment in muscle strain. Itis entirely possible that this kind of sugar pills impede the treatment. Inthis case, the speaker cannot convince me of the effects of the antibiotics inthe treatment.

Finally, even if theantibiotics surely have good effects on the treatment of muscle strain, thespeaker makes a conclusion much hastily that all patients of muscle strainshould take antibiotics. Yet the speaker ignores the possibility that somepatients of muscle strain are allergic to antibiotics. Therefore, without a completeconsideration, the speaker cannot confidently draw any conclusion thatantibiotics should be put in use to treat all patients with muscle strain.

In sum, as it stands thespeaker’s argument is unconvincing. To strengthen it, the speaker must providemuch more clear evidence about the occurrence rate of secondary infection amongthe patients with muscle strain; and also, the speaker needs to provide ascientific evidence to illustrates that in the same conditions, such as theskills of doctors, the treatment methods, and the physical condition of thepatients, antibiotics are conducive to a significant reduction in the time forthe treatment of the patients with muscle strain.