Argument51 <Winner小组> 第2-3次作业

twobirdsUID: 113329

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: 354          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-16 21:56:12

The arguer claims that patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment by applying a study comparison. The argument seems well-reasoned and logically-articulated at the first glance; however, a careful scrutiny of the stand point and the reasoning process of the arguer reveals that the argument suffers from several fallacies and thus leads to the argument unconvincing.

First of all, the hypothesis's main point is not necessary relevant to the study. The content of the hypothesis is about the relationship between the secondary infections and the recovery time of severe muscle strain, while the study is about the use of the antibiotics and the healing time. No evidence is offered to prove that the use of antibiotics can prevent a secondary infection, either will cause a secondary infection without using of antibiotic. So the relationship between secondary infections and the use of antibiotic is just assumed by the auguer, thus, leading to the argument unconvincing at the first step.

Secondly, the study of a two-group comparison is in short of necessary background information and same evaluation criteria. On one hand, we don't know how the patients are composed of. If the first group are mostly young people or the muscle strain are generally slighter than the second group, it is naturally inclined that the first group will recover sooner; On the other hand, the doctors of two groups are not at a same professional level. Dr. D in the first group as a specialist in sports medicine, he is likely to know better about the organization of muscle than Dr. Alton as a general physician in the second group. Thus, the advice from Dr. D should be also more conductive to the patients ‘ recovery. Additionally, as sugar pill is prescribed in the second treatment. Since no evidence shows that sugar pill has negative effect in taking the antibiotics together, there is room for us to doubt actually sugar pill does. Therefore, any scenario above, if true, will definitely undermine the argument.

Moreover, the side effect of antibiotic is not mentioned in the argument. As we all know, some people may be allergic to antibiotic. So the use of antibiotic should be careful and can’t just be prescribed without a second thought.

In a whole, to make a convincing argument, the arguer should find necessary bound between secondary infection and antibiotics, and consider the situations of the study more comprehensively to make it reliable, meanwhile, take into account the patients’ body reaction to antibiotics. In this way, the adoption of antibiotics in the muscle strain treatment can be much acceptable.



[ 本帖最后由 twobirds 于 2007-8-16 22:52 编辑 ]

abc021900UID: 2369431

The arguer claims that patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment by applying a study comparison. The argument seems well-reasoned and logically-articulated at the first glance; however, a careful scrutiny of the stand point and the reasoning process of the arguer reveals that the argument suffers from several fallacies and thus leads to the argument unconvincing.

First of all, the hypothesis's main point is not necessary relevant to the study. The content of the hypothesis is about the relationship between the secondary infections and the recovery time of severe muscle strain, while the study is about the use of the antibiotics and the healing time. No evidence is offered to prove that the use of antibiotics can prevent a secondary infection, either will cause a secondary infection without using of antibiotic. So the relationship between secondary infections and the use of antibiotic is just assumed by the auguer, thus, leading to the argument unconvincing at the first step.（这段觉得有点问题，题目的结论是muscle strain 要吃antibiotics，你说的是两个前提的关系了。）

Secondly, the study of a two-group comparison is （in） short of necessary background information and same evaluation criteria. On one hand, we don't know how the patients are composed of. If the first group are mostly young people or the muscle strain are generally slighter than the second group, it is naturally inclined that the first group will recover sooner; On the other hand, the doctors of two groups are not at a same professional level. Dr. D in the first group as a specialist in sports medicine, he is likely to know better about the organization of muscle than Dr. Alton as a general physician in the second group. Thus, the advice from Dr. D should be also more conductive to the patients ‘ recovery. Additionally, as sugar pill is prescribed in the second treatment. Since no evidence shows that sugar pill has negative effect in taking the antibiotics together, there is room for us to doubt actually sugar pill does(不是同时吃，一组吃sugar pill ，一组吃ntibiotics ). Therefore, any scenario above, if true, will definitely undermine the argument.

Moreover, the side effect of antibiotic is not mentioned in the argument. As we all know, some people may be allergic to antibiotic. So the use of antibiotic should be careful and can’t just be prescribed without a second thought.（这段太单薄了点）

In a whole, to make a convincing argument, the arguer should find necessary bound between secondary infection and antibiotics, and consider the situations of the study more comprehensively to make it reliable, meanwhile, take into account the patients’ body reaction to antibiotics. In this way, the adoption of antibiotics in the muscle strain treatment can be much acceptable.

delightxUID: 2275504