[a习作temp] Argument051【0906G Fight 3月中~4月初队】第3周第x作业 by nebula [复制链接]

nebula852
UID: 2531976

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 1
寄托币: 261
注册时间: 2008-8-15
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-2-27 20:06:23 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

1.
样品组不详。性别，年龄，生理特征，病情
2.
操作的医生不同。技术不同，采取的技术方法不同
3.
即使是用抗生素回复得比较快，那如果有副作用

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: 473
TIME: 00:32:00
DATE: 2009/2/27 19:16:26

The author claims that all patients who suffer from muscle strain would be well suggested to take antibiotics besides treatment. To justify this conclusion, the arguer cites the results of a research of two groups of patients, which point out
that the patients who take antibiotics was 40 percent quicker than typically expected while the non-taken group was not distinctively reduced. This argument has several critical flaws.
To begin with, we have no ideas about the structure of the two groups that have been surveyed from this argument, including age, fax, physical conditions and so on. It is possible that the patients in the second group are getting more serious than those in the first group. Or the average age of the first group is younger, or the making up of the second group is all females. In these cases, the first group is more likely to recover faster than the second. Without equal numbers of patients in the same conditions besides injuring antibiotics or sugar the conclusion the author put up with is open to doubt.
Secondly, the backgrounds of the operator who handle this experiment are not the same at all. As is known to all, the knowledge and technology a doctor have is the main factor that determine the patients' recovery. Dr. Newland, doctor of the first group, specializes in sports medicine. Dr. Alton, the doctor of the second group, is a general physician. It is possible that Dr. Newland are better at curing the muscle strain while Dr. Alton are better at other fields but not muscle strain. If so, we are authorized to doubt the definition of this experiment as a result of different treatment will certainly cause different result. It is not worthwhile to put these two group into comparison.
Even if it is the antibiotics that helps cure the muscle strain more quickly, we are not been told about the physical conditions after the treatment. Perhaps the pain happen again after a few days. Or new pain troubles the patients in respect of the abuse of the antibiotics. If we only concentrate on the period of the treatment and ignore the consequently reflection, not only and the conclusion is unwarranted, but also the result of the experiment are not practical for the public, or even harmful.
In conclusion, the same conditions of the two sample groups are the premise on which the conclusion base on. The author should give the readers more information about the experiment. And also, the doctors who treat the patients are supposed to use the same way to cure them. But we can find nothing related in this argument to gain creditability to the claim. What's more, which can be easily ignored is that the reflection after the treatment. It plays a critical role in recognizing the impact on which the antibiotics have.