[a习作temp] agrument51【challenge yourself小组】第5次作业 [复制链接]

infant~
UID: 2242949

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 77
寄托币: 1220
注册时间: 2006-8-16
精华: 3
帖子: 19

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-7-31 22:59:42 |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."
WORDS: 577 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2008-7-31 8:34:43

In this newsletter, the author claims that antibiotics should be considered part of the treatment of all patients diagnosed with muscle strain. To support it, the author cites a study involving two groups of patients who take antibiotics and sugar pills respectively as their treatment for muscle injuries. The author also points out that the group taking antibiotics enjoy an average 40 percent quicker recuperation time than typically expected, while the group taking sugar pills do not. However, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals several critical problems, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the author provides no specific statistical information about the study, which makes the validity of the study doubtful. Perhaps the first group of patients is in their early age and enjoys a better health condition and better recovery ability, while the second group of patients is the elderly who suffer from decreased health condition. Or perhaps patients in the first group are having slight muscle strain with no secondary infections while patients in the second one are having terrible muscle strain with severe secondary infections. In short, unless more information is given to show that the subjects of the study are randomly chosen and represent a diverse cross section of the patients with muscle strain, the results of the study are simply unreliable.

Secondly, the disparity of medicine taken by the two groups of patients does not necessarily establish a causal relationship between different medicine taken and different average recuperation time. It is entirely possible that other factors might also bring about the same results. For instance, the different doctor may have a great contribution. After all, in treating a muscle strain, a doctor who is specialized in sports medicine has a great chance of doing better job than a doctor who is a general physician. Or perhaps the first group of patients is recovering in a favorable condition with proper temperature and humidity while the second group of patients is simple in adverse condition. Because the argument offers no evidence to rule out these or other possibilities, the author simply cannot convince me on the basis of this vague study.

Thirdly, even if I were to concede that the study do indicate a positive effect of antibiotics in treating secondary infections, the author unfairly reasons that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would be proper to take antibiotics as their treatment. On the one hand, whether all patients with muscle injuries are necessarily suffering from secondary infections is questionable. On the other hand, even for patients with secondary infections, antibiotics is not proved to be the only or the best solution. Perhaps there is another medicine far better and convenient than antibiotics thus recommending antibiotics becomes too hasty. Or perhaps there are certain patients who are allergic to antibiotics thus is not proper to take it as a treatment. In short, the author fails to provide evidence to support this recommendation.

To sum up, the author fails to adequately support the recommendation that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To strengthen it, the author must provide specific statistical information about the study. To better assess it, the author should also supply evidence that antibiotics is the real and primary cause of the recuperation time disparity between two groups of patients, and that results of this single study can be applied to all the relavant cases with no severe side effects.

回应
0

使用道具举报

qillura
UID: 2186638

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 795
注册时间: 2006-2-14
精华: 0
帖子: 15

沙发

发表于 2008-8-1 21:35:36 |只看该作者

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."
WORDS: 577 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2008-7-31 8:34:43

In this newsletter, the author claims that antibiotics should be considered part of the treatment of all patients diagnosed with muscle strain. To support

it, the author cites a study involving two groups of patients who take antibiotics and sugar pills respectively as their treatment for muscle injuries. The

author also points out that the group taking antibiotics enjoy an average 40 percent quicker（shorter） recuperation time than typically

expected, while the group taking sugar pills do not. However, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals several critical problems, which render it

unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the author provides no specific statistical information about the study, which makes the validity of the study doubtful. Perhaps the first

group of patients is in their early age and enjoys a better health condition and better recovery ability, while the second group of patients is the elderly

who suffer from decreased health condition. Or perhaps patients in the first group are having slight muscle strain with no secondary infections while

patients in the second one are having terrible muscle strain with severe secondary infections.（二次感染是试验过程中的，不能作为条件比较）

In short, unless more information is given to show that the subjects of the study are randomly（随机不一定公平嘛） chosen and

（can）represent a diverse cross section of the patients with muscle strain, the results of the study are simply unreliable.

Secondly, the disparity of medicine taken by the two groups of patients does not necessarily establish a causal relationship between different medicine taken

and different average recuperation time. It is entirely possible that other factors might also bring about the same results. For instance, the different

doctor may have a great contribution. After all, in treating a muscle strain, a doctor who is specialized in sports medicine has a great chance of doing

better job than a doctor who is a general physician. Or perhaps the first group of patients is recovering in a favorable condition with proper temperature

and humidity while the second group of patients is simple in adverse condition. Because the argument offers no evidence to rule out these or other

possibilities, the author simply cannot convince me on the basis of this vague study.
这一段和第一段一样还是说试验不公平啊，和我一样嘛－－大坏蛋。。。。。。。。。。。。。。
要是这样写的话应该点出来第一段是说试验pool的选择不好
第二断再说试验其他不公平

Thirdly, even I were to concede that the study do indicate a positive effect of antibiotics in treating secondary infections, the author unfairly reasons

that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would be proper to take antibiotics as their treatment. On the one hand, whether all patients with muscle

injuries are necessarily suffering from secondary infections is questionable. On the other hand, even for patients with secondary infections, antibiotics is

not proved to be the only or the best solution. Perhaps there is another medicine far better and convenient than antibiotics thus recommending antibiotics

becomes too hasty. Or perhaps there are certain patients who are allergic to antibiotics thus is not proper to take it as a treatment. In short, the author

fails to provide evidence to support this recommendation.
（byby~bgbg~）

To sum up, the author fails to adequately support the recommendation that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their

treatment. To strengthen it, the author must provide specific statistical information about the study. To better assess it, the author should also supply

evidence that antibiotics is the real and primary cause of the recuperation time disparity between two groups of patients, and that results of this single

study can be applied to all the relavant cases with no severe side effects.

（笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨
笨

乖～～～）

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报