Argu51 麻烦大家猛烈的拍 谢谢!!

muzebbsUID: 2599582

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."
字数：314
用时：00:30:00
日期：2009-9-2 10:08:54

The claim that all patients suffering muscle strain should take antibiotics in their treatment sounds reasonable at the first glance. After all, the arguer does offer some evidence from scientific study. However, several important concerns, which the arguer fails to address in the analysis, may render the argument unconvincing.

First of all, the argument rests on an unreasonable assumption that secondary infections must happen in patients with muscle strain. It is greatly possible that only a part of patients, for example only patients with severe muscle strain may suffer secondary infections. Thus, to advise all patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics may be unnecessary.

In addition, the argument is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account that the inherent difference between the two groups of patients in the study. The arguer does not offer any information concerning with the age, sex and medical record of patients in these two groups. Also ignored by the arguer is the fact that the various majors of the doctors may be another reason of the different average recuperation time. Consequently, without ruling out possibilities mentioned above, the results of the study can not lend strong support to the argument.

Finally, Even if the results of the study is convincing, the arguer is too hasty to draw the conclusion that antibiotic benefits patients with muscle strain. That is because no evidence about side-effects of antibiotic has been provided in the argument. Only if the side-effects of antibiotic to patients with muscle strain are zero or slight, it would be appropriate for patients to take it.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does no lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen the arguments, the arguer should have provided more evidence to ensure the effectiveness of the study and establish a clearer relation between antibiotics and patients with muscle strain.

stanzyUID: 2629386

改了几个，我写在这里你对照吧。
一个是take into account后面的that 去掉，我想你这里应该不是宾语从句吧？
然后是后面的difference改为differences
把only if 改为only when。当且尽当？反正我从来没看到过only if，所以我觉得还是改了吧
段尾patients to take it 的it 去掉

我还是想说明一下，我觉得这里对secondary  inffection 的理解出现了分歧。事实上，我认为，原文是想证明二次感染会使muscle strain这种疾病恢复的速度减慢。为了说明这个问题，作者比较了两个医师的实验，一个使用了抗体，另一个没有。而恰好使用抗菌素的恢复的更快。那这里就出现了问题。除了你在第二点讨论的病人自身因素之外，还有一个重要的疑点，那就是Dr. Newland的实验治疗的是musle injuries， 而文章开始讨论的是muscle strain，那么这是研究不能很好地说明结论。况且，Dr. Alton的所谓对照组（control）也不知道得的是muscle strain 还是muscle injuries，那就没有什么可比性，可以说是错误类比

muzebbsUID: 2599582

2# stanzy

谢谢指点~~