argument51 自己的第一篇习作，望有经验的朋友能帮忙指导一下~

chris_8023stefUID: 2746454

In this argument, the author justified an assumption that secondary infections influence on healing of the severe muscle strain, and that has been long suspected by doctors. Then author cited two results of a study of two groups to substantiate this assumption, but there are still several flaws in this argument.
First of all, the author’s conclusion that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain depend on the hypothesis that has been proved by a preliminary result of a research is sufficiently reliable. Yet, the results of a research are just preliminary, that the conclusion has not enough evidences for people to convince that is cogent. For an illustration, it is widely accepted that Newton’s laws of motion have been expressed over nearly three centuries that is really a long time. Therefore, the evidence is not sufficient to prove the author’s conclusion.
From the patients’ angle, we know nothing about ages, physique, and general health of the patients who participated in the study involved. We also do not know if the patients are of the same ages, physique, and general health as those who will be given the same therapy. Further, if the patients who are treated by Dr. Newland are all quite young, and who are treated by Dr. Alton are older than the group before, thus patients of first group recuperated quicker than the second group only because of the ages not of the influence of the antibiotics. Moreover, the author must show that these patients of two groups, some of them took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment and some of them were given sugar pills, is a sufficiently large sample, and this sample is representative of all the people.
From the doctors’ angle, Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine and Dr. Alton is a general physician, they engage in different fields. Probably Dr. Newland let his patients do physical therapy regularly except only taking antibiotics and Dr. Alton did nothing only taking sugar pills, that is the reason why the recuperation time of first group was quicker than the second group’s rather than taking antibiotics.
In sum, To strengthen the argument, the author must provide much more and clearer evidences to prove the procedure of experiment is comprehensive and rigorous rather than illustrating some simple examples to explain the conclusions or taking a one-sided approach to problems. Furthermore, any legitimate experiment must be strictly controlled and include a broad cross-section of the population. The above study fails to do that. So as it stands the argument is wholly unpersuasive.


写得有些短~大家见笑了~