[a习作temp] 处女argument 不到400字哭大家拍死我吧。。。 [复制链接]

zsn900503
UID：2945234

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 128
注册时间: 2011-2-6
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2011-2-23 21:42:44 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

看的多前段时间都是一个个攻击点分开练得还有不到30天终于决定要连起来写了 45分钟才写完一篇垃圾。。。大家拍拍吧我没勇气看了
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."

In this argument, the author recommends that patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as their treatment. To strengthen this recommendation, the author points out that secondary infections may prohibit healing after muscle strain. The author also cites a supporting study indicating that antibiotics can shorten recuperation time. The argument might be somehow reasonable at first glance, but close scrutiny reveals several unconvincing assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive.
To begin with, the author’s conclusion about antibiotics is useful depend on the assumption that the survey is statistically reliable. Yet, the author offers no evidence to substantiate this assumption. Perhaps these two doctors guide patients to do some exercise during their treatment, or Dr. Newland group’s patient suffer less muscle strain than Dr. Alton. Moreover, taking sugar pills might lead some bad effect to patients so that prolong the recuperation time. Without ruling out all such possible reasons, the author cannot justifiably draw the conclusion that antibiotics may shorten treatment time.
Even assuming that taking antibiotics do decrease recovery time, the author’s recommendation unfairly assumes that all patients are secondary infected and suffer from sever muscle strain. Perhaps the patient infected once, or perhaps the patient just suffer from sever muscle strain and do not infected, then taking antibiotic will lose its efficacy. Without eliminating such possible phenomenon, the author cannot convince me that all patients with muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics.
Finally, even if we accept that taking antibiotic is helpful to those who suffer secondary infection and severe muscle strain, the author ignores the possibility that some other medicine—perhaps antimetabolite would reduce the recovery time even better. Moreover, some patient might be allergic to antibiotic. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot justifiably recommend antibiotic to all patients.
In conclusion, the argument is logically unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide more evidence such as establishing a reliable survey which among all equal circumstances antibiotics is useful and the medicine is useful to those suffer from severe muscle strain and those who suffer from muscle strain and secondary infected. Finally, to be more persuasive, the author should compare antibiotic to other medicines showing that taking antibiotic is the most effective way to shorten recovery time.