最后的战役 第一周 argument 51 by napoleon

CrowleyUID: 2977353

Inthis argument, the arguer recommends that the people who are diagnosed withmuscle strain should better take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Tosubstantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites a 40 percent quickerrecuperation(恢复)time in his experiment if take antibiotics. On the basis of this evidence, theauthor infers that every patient would better take antibiotics. This line ofreasoning is flawed in several aspects.

In the first place, the argument based on aproblematic assumption that the secondary infections will certainlyhappen-rather than analyzing other possible reasons block the quick healing-and then cause the delay of healing. Lacking such statistics probability
Of of secondary infections todemonstrate it is the major cause, the arguer fails to provide sufficientevidence to support his assumption. It is entirely possible that the peopleaffected by secondary infections are just a minority and (thus) the needs of take
(taking)
antibiotics are just untenable.

Even if the evidences cites (cited) above indicate thesecondary infections is the major cause, the argument rests on furtherassumption that
Taking taking antibiotics canaccelerate the progress of healing. The arguer draws this conclusion just basedon an experiment which (whose) reliability is stillsuspicious. There lie three respects in the experiment. First of all, thesample construction is not very clear. Without more information about thedegree of disease, we do not distinguish the actual effects of taking antibiotics to
from recovery.Easily imagine based on our common senses that the man badly hurt often needs a longer time for hisrecovery than the slight one ( 这里可以去掉，不去掉反倒有歧义) . Secondly,
they
（who？）are took care by twodifferent doctors. How much of influence of this variation is not evaluated inthe argument. In our mind,（
common sense 和个人感觉的词要少用，缺乏严谨性） in the usual cases a doctorwho specializes in sports medicine may be better than a general one in treatinga patient with muscle strain. But the arguer lacks
to ( lack to do? 这个用法对么？我不清楚，但是个人感觉不对直接fail to得了) given relative information.Thirdly, they have taken different pills, but the effect of sugar pills isstill not instructed yet. Maybe the sugar is a factor to impede the recovery.Soto gain a more convincible conclusion from this experiment, these threeproblems must be handled.

Finally, the argument commits an either or fallacythat treat antibiotics as the only possible choice. Not any evidence isprovided that antibiotics is the best way to treat muscle strain, and theactual situation is probably that nowadays the common treatment in hospital isneither taking antibiotics nor sugar pills but a more useful solution. Then whywe should should we abandon that one,and instead, to inject antibiotics .In addition, the side effect of antibioticsis not mentioned in the argument, like allergy etc.(这个地方要将例子说透些，like allergy 然后加个同位语，啥啥啥的，关于allergy)

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibilitybecause the evidences cited in the argument do not lend strong support to whatthe arguer maintain. To enhance the argument, the arguer would have to providemore evidence concerning that(1)the secondary infections is truly the majorproblem(2)the sample is average(3)the difference of doctors make no differentin treatment(4)sugar cause no effect in the treatment. To better evaluate theargument, we would need more information regarding other treatment and the sideeffect of antibiotics.
点评：
不错啊，很清晰。