Arguement51 ~今天的练习

hychlavenderUID: 2697566

OPIC: Argument 51 - 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: 513
TIME: 01:00:00
DATE: 2010/1/24 15:27:27

This argument recommends that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain are strongly suggested to take antibiotics for the quicker healing. To justify this recommendation, the arguer cites a paralleled test showing the details of the test and differences of healing time between the two testing groups. While this argument has some merits, several critical flaws in the experiment undermine the line of reasoning.

The argument's chief problem is that it relies on numerous unsubstantiated assumptions about the paralleled experiment. One such assumption is that the participants' quicker healing is attributable to the antibiotics they takes in the experiment, yet an experiment covers various of factors contributing to the final results, it is too hasty to draw the conclusion that antibiotics is the primary reason to the shorter healing time. It is entirely possible that the relatively better therapy environment gives patients more helpful mentation for the treatment, or perhaps the participants suffer from less serious muscle strain. Moreover, the author unfairly assumes that the typical expected recuperation time is able to represent the average situation, it is uncertain to definite how long average recuperation time is. Without consideration and ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot justifiably conclude that the consequence of the experiment is due to the antibiotics the participants take.

In addition, the foregoing experiment’s representativeness is open to doubt. No data about the participants’ number and structure is provided by the author, if the quantity of its participants could not constitute a sufficient large sample for a convincing test, any conclusion drawn from it may not be used as a strong support for his recommendation. Also, even if the sample is large enough in number, the regional representativeness is not warranted. For example, perhaps the members of patients come from the same region, then the results may not properly apply to other regions since the differences among regions exist. In short, lacking such evidences about the sample, the author’s conclusion remains dubious at best.

What most counts is the difference between the two experimental groups’ doctors. Since the more professional the first group’s doctor is, it is reasonable to have a shorter healing time for the patients in that group. Without addressing such possible explanation for the conclusion, the experiment can hardly say a word for the recommendation.

Aside from the experiment involving recuperation time, the author’s final recommendation that all patients should take antibiotics to gain shorter healing time is questionable. Only relying on the mere experiment, the author make the unconvincing conclusion that antibiotics is helpful to every patients. It is entirely possible that a lot of people is allergic to this kind of medicines, which would undermine their therapy process. If so, the author cannot convince me the necessity of the antibiotics.

In conclusion, the arguer’s recommendation is remain questionable due to the lacking information of the experiment and several unfounded assumptions. To better bolster his recommendation , more data about the structure and number of the participants is required, and also the author should illustrate the detail reasons for apply antibiotics for every muscle strain patient.

自己写完就贴上来了，罪过，自己都没怎么仔细看。今天家庭间聚会，哎，没怎么看书都。。。

Jamin_CheungUID: 2752925

我觉得楼主写得挺好的，至少是比我的好。呵呵
分析题目的时候，我觉得一开始作者提到的二次感染对病愈的影响是个蛮大的逻辑问题，不过楼主木有提到。
我觉得，还是要讲的吧。
我也刚写了这篇，楼主要回拍啊。
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1054501&extra=page%3D1%26amp%3Bfilter%3Dtype%26amp%3Btypeid%3D102

hychlavenderUID: 2697566

2# Jamin_Cheung
嗯，是哪，草稿上的提纲写了，结果用AWP的时候没打上去。。。。。
马上就去改了~