[i习作temp] phenix写作小组组员2号Argument第二次作业 [复制链接]

wu-intrepid
UID：2659758

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 18
寄托币: 844
注册时间: 2009-7-2
精华: 0
帖子: 34

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-2-13 01:03:17 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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."

The arguer suggests patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatments
to avoid secondary infections by the study of doctors and the results of preliminary experiment. Though it seems secondary infections are some related to antibiotics, the arguer does not offer adequate evidence to show that the reason of patients healing faster is and only is taking antibiotics.

First, the arguer descript the experiments are lead by two different doctor, one is specialized in sports medicine, and the other is a general physician. Though the first one took antibiotics during the treatment, and his patients recuperate more quickly than the other's. We cannot infer that the reason why quickly is the function of antibiotics. Because we don not know whether the first doctor is better than the general one in sports medicine. Since the first one is specialized in it, his ability of curing muscle strain may be stronger and even if he does not take antibiotics, also can cure the patients more quickly the general. If so, antibiotics are not necessary in the curing of muscle strain.

Second, even this two doctor are in the same level of curing this ill, the arguer negatives the difference between this two group patients. Since the patient's degree of injuring and ability of recuperation affect the speed of healing. Supposing two patients, one is light muscle strain and with a strong body, the other is serious and with weak body. It is obviously, even in the same condition of medicine, the first one will heal more quickly. And considering the arguer just compares the average speed of these two groups. It is more likely that number of the patients of light muscle strain or of good bodies in first group are more than in the second. In that case, higher average speed of healing is reasonable and not bearing of antibiotics.

In addition, despaired of the experiment, the doctors' suggestion can not strong support to the arguer's conclusion. For the doctors thinks antibiotics may be useful to severe muscle strain. It does not point all muscle strain. Possibly, the antibiotics are not proper to each patients, maybe of some by-productive in other bad aspects, may of strong efficiency of killing bacteria, and the general patients not in need. Thus, it is not safe to take them as treatment method without comprehensive study. The arguer’s suggestion is dangerous that patients may take this medicine wrong aggravating the illness or coursing new one.

To sum up, the arguer’s evidences are not adequate and accurate. To make the conclusion persuaded and reasonable, many other factors should be taken into consideration. Which should include the difference of doctors’ ability in the experiment, the situation of the patients, and the comprehensive affect of antibiotics.