A 51 帮忙拍提纲就好，全文。。。我还是有自知之明的。。。

tunicateUID: 2722773

第二篇A就大义凛然用AWP掐表45min，结果是杯具的。。。很多模板还要自己再琢磨，希望各位大牛评价下提纲先，免得越改越跑。。。


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: 522
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010/1/31 12:19:00

51 No Reliable Presupposition
     =>Are the examinee suffering from second infection?
     =>what's the effect of the antibiotics?

    less rigorous study
     =>No data provided about the testees—Are they in the same condition?
     =>Doctors' different skill
     =>sugar pills != placebo

By studying two group of patients who were suffered by muscle injuries and accepted treatment by two different doctors with different treating method and observing a quicker recovery in the group that accepted antibiotics, the author draw a hasty conclusion that secondary infection is one obstacle that prevents the patients from recovering and suggests all patients with muscle strain take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

The assumption, though sounds logical at the first sight, are in fact an unfound one. For not only the evidence provided is suspicious, the presupposition itself is dubious to some degree. It is supposed in the argument that all the patients included in the experiment suffered from a secondary infection, while this might not be the case. Secondary infection might occur on some of whom involved in the study, but the exact number and its distribution remained unknown. It is well possible that a great number of patients involved in the second group experienced secondary infection while only a small amount of those in the first group suffered. On this condition, the conclusion is not so safely to be arrived at. Additionally, the effect of the antibiotics used in the study is also suspicious. How can the mayor justify that it did help in reducing the secondary infection? Further evidences and supports will be needed if the author hope to strengthen his/her argument.

Even if we admit the precondition, the study, in itself, is not sufficient to substantiate the argument.
By studying patients in two groups, the arguer had hoped to analyze the issue in a dialectical way. However, no evidence demonstrated that the patients treated are in the same condition. If the first group contained those professional athletes that were stronger to those in Group Two, it may due to their own recovery abilities that they experienced a quicker recovery. The difference in doctors, on the other hand, played a vital role in his patients’ recovery, too. While the first group was treated by a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, there's no doubt that their recovery were easier for the doctor known exactly what a patient suffered from muscle strain needed.
The second group, however, receive their treatment from a general physician, who might lack the necessary background of specialized treatment on people with sport-related injury.
Besides, the sugar pills which the second group of patients accepted were also dubious. There's no trustable support to show that the pills, though supposed to be placebos, didn't have other side-effects on the patients.

All in all, as discussed above, the statement omits some substantial concerns that should have been addressed. To further develop the analysis, the mayor had better certify his/her presupposition that the patients being treated are indeed suffered from a secondary infection. In addition, the perspective performance of the antibiotics should be included as well. To make the study involved more persuading, it' better for the arguer to select patients of the same condition as well as receive treatment from the same doctor. Therefore, if the argument included the assumed factors listed above, it would have been a more insightful and logical acceptable one.