[i习作temp] argument51 [0710G-summer小组]第六次作业 [复制链接]

Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence,the statement draws the conclusion that all patients  diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment.To substantiate the conclusion,the author points out the evidence that the recuperation of the first group is much faster than of the second group.At first glance,the argument appears to be somewhat convincing,but further reflection reviews that it omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in this argument.In my view,this argument suffers from three logical flaws.The threshold problem with this argument is that the arguer tells us that two groups of patients are involved in the sthdy(study).However,the author fails to provide information regarding the absolute number of patients in each group.Perhaps the patients number(不知道可以这么说不 the number of patients) is very small,so this evidence of this study is far too vague to be meaningful.Furthermore,the arguer gives us no convincing evidence that the two groups of patients are representative of the people diagnosed with muscle strain.For example,when patients in the first group are more healthier or stronger,the recuperation of them should be obviously much more faster than those in the second group.So unless the two group both sampled a sufficient number of patients and did so randomly across the entire people  diagnosed with muscle strain,the study results are not reliable go gauge(?? 没看懂) the conclusion generally.Even if the patients in the study are sufficient and representive,another problem that weekens the logic of this argument is that the author relies on what might be a poor contrast between the two groups.Just as what is stated in the argument,the  doctor in the first group is a doctor who specializes in sports medicine while the doctor in the second one is a general physician.It is much probable that the doctor in first group gave more other kinds of treatment through his special knowledge in sports medicine resulting in the faster recuperation.So the faster recuperation might stemmed from other factors rather than antibiotics.Even if the patients in the study are sufficient and representive and antibiotics can indeed help the recuperation of the patients,the arguer should not falsely and hastily extend this treatment to all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain.For example,it is most likely that some patients diagnosed with muscle strain did not suffer from secondary infections.If so,it is unwarranted that antibiotics should be used to these patients.Without ruling out these possible situation or factors,the author cannot confidently conclude that the antibiotics could have a better effect on all the patients diagnosed with muscle strain.To sum up,the author fails to strength his conclusion that antibiotics could help recuperation of all patients diagnosed with muscle strain,because the evidence cited in the statement does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains.To make this argument more convincing,the arguer would have to provide more information with regard to the effect antibiotics exert on the patients.Addtionally,he would have to demonstrate more credible evidence that antibiotics can accelerate recuperation process for all kinds of patients  diagnosed with muscle strain.Therefore,if this argument had included the given factors mentioned above,the argument would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.