argument51 求拍，跪求建议，救救我吧！！！

quyi0912UID: 2730022

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."

The arguer recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the conclusion, the arguer provide a medical study’s preliminary result: one group of patients often were given antibiotics by a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, and recovered 40% quicker than typical expected on average; the other group who were treated by a general physician often took sugar pills, and their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. This argument may mask other (and potentially more significant) positive factors of the treatment and may mislead people to take an abuse of antibiotics.

First of all, the arguer suggests that antibiotics can be applied to all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain according to the medical study’s result. However, no sufficient evidence is provided to sustain such assumption that all those patients will have a secondary infection. In addition, the arguer ignores a critical point that if all the patients with muscle strain are suitable to taking and the security of the medicine. It may cause serious damage instead of curing effect on some people who may be allergic to antibiotics. So it might be problematic to analyze the consequence of the truth of the study.

In the second place, the argument lacks more specific information about the severity of injuries, physical conditions of two groups of patients. The first group of patients may only have a slight muscle strain which may be just treated by human mechanism’s self-control. But the patients in the second group may all have severe muscle strain, a serious interference for their daily life, which brings grievous suffering to the patients and is hardly curable completely. And for this reason, two groups may have different psychic conditions; the first group of patients may have a more optimistic attitude towards the disease than the second group and this point help the patients in first group recovered quicker. The antibiotics just give a booster action even nothing.

Finally, the arguer fails to provide any information regarding that antibiotic is the only difference; there might be others between treatments offered by the two doctors. Just from the comparison of their specialties, the first group’s doctor who specializes in sports medicine can provide some more helpful plan to treat the muscle strain, such as physiotherapy and psychological suggestion while the second group’s doctor is a general physician who can not give any effective therapeutic schedules except the sugar pills. Moreover, even the sugar pill may cause negative effects on the healing of the second group of patients.

To sum up, the arguer’s recommendation is very dangerous. To support it the arguer must supply more clear evidence that those patients will have a secondary infection and the result of the antibiotics’ using experiment. Finally, to better evaluate the suggestion I would need more information about the age, gender, severity of injuries and physical conditions of two groups of patients.

并请给我些建议吧，我3月16的机考，现在刚开写argu，issues茫然不知。

tequilawineUID: 2702008

The arguer recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the conclusion, the arguer provide a medical study’s preliminary result: one group of patients often were given antibiotics by a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, and recovered 40% quicker than typical expected on average; the other group who were treated by a general physician often took sugar pills, and their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. This argument may mask other (and potentially more significant) positive factors of the treatment and may mislead people to take an abuse of antibiotics.只有一句是你说的，前面应该缩减。

First of all, the arguer suggests that antibiotics can be applied to all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain according to the medical study’s result. However, no sufficient evidence is provided to sustain such assumption that all those patients will have a secondary infection. In addition, the arguer ignores a critical point that if all the patients with muscle strain are suitable to taking and the security of the medicine. It may cause serious damage instead of curing effect on some people who may be allergic to antibiotics. So it might be problematic to analyze the consequence of the truth of the study.

In the second place, the argument lacks more specific information about the severity of injuries, physical conditions of two groups of patients. The first group of patients may only have a slight muscle strain which may be just treated by human mechanism’s self-control. But the patients in the second group may all have severe muscle strain, a serious interference for their daily life, which brings grievous suffering to the patients and is hardly curable completely. And for this reason, two groups may have different psychic conditions; the first group of patients may have a more optimistic attitude towards the disease than the second group and this point help the patients in first group recovered quicker. The antibiotics just give a booster action even nothing.通用写法，找例子的毛病，但是最重要你要说明的是例子无法支撑论点，换句话说，你缺乏论点。

Finally, the arguer fails to provide any information regarding that antibiotic is the only difference; there might be others between treatments offered by the two doctors. Just from the comparison of their specialties, the first group’s doctor who specializes in sports medicine can provide some more helpful plan to treat the muscle strain, such as physiotherapy and psychological suggestion while the second group’s doctor is a general physician who can not give any effective therapeutic schedules except the sugar pills. Moreover, even the sugar pill may cause negative effects on the healing of the second group of patients.同样是找例子的毛病，用了另一个段落，不合适，文章还有其他的毛病，对不

To sum up, the arguer’s recommendation is very dangerous. To support it the arguer must supply more clear evidence that those patients will have a secondary infection and the result of the antibiotics’ using experiment. Finally, to better evaluate the suggestion I would need more information about the age, gender, severity of injuries and physical conditions of two groups of patients.

quyi0912UID: 2730022

2# tequilawine 万分感谢！！找例子错不太明白，第一段是太长了，我会改正，请具体猛批，跪谢！！！！