【big fish】2月24日Argument51---by Jenius

jenius4869UID: 2659821

51The 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."





In this newsletter, the author asserts that every patient who suffers from muscle strain should be recommended to take antibiotics during the treatment. To support the contention, the author also cites a study which on the purpose to find out whether the antibiotics are useful for muscle strain recuperation. From the perspective of the author, this experiment successfully improves the efficient of antibiotics when deal with patients suffering from muscle injuries. However, for several logical flaws, I suspect that the author's proposal is unpersuasive.



To begin with, I want to argue about the reliability of this experiment. The author fails to provide elaborate information about the experiment, such as the number of patients who take part in this study of each group, and the extent of individual muscle injury and other experimental paremeters. Lacking such detailed evidence, it is hardly to draw any conclusions of the experiment. Since these factors can all influence the accuracy of the experimental result. For instance, suppose the extreme condition that the patients of second group all suffering from badly server muscle injuries while the first group are only diagnosed with light injuries, then certainly second group may need a longer time to recover compared with first one, so how can we possibly know whether antibiotics could make a contribution to recovery? Without considering these factors, the author's suggestion cannot be taken seriously.



Even assuming that the study is statistically reliable, there is also another problem with it that cannot be neglected. As the author claims that the doctors who treat the patients of each group are not the same. One specialized in sports medicine while another is merely a general physician. It is possible that the faster recuperation of the patients of group one can be attributed to the Dr. Newland's credit rather than the effect of antibiotics. Therefore, I cannot accept the conclusion of the study since the doctors who take care the patient are different persons.

Setting the study which is not cogent aside, even if the antibiotics are effective while used to prevent the patients from secondary infections as the doctors suspected. It is unwarranted to advise every patient who have something to do with muscle strain to take antibiotics. Because it is important to take it properly according to the extent of muscle injury. For some slight injury, there is even on need to take antibiotics. As we know, the abuse of antibiotics will cause the resistance of bacteria and weaken our immune system. So we should be careful and rational when take antibiotics during treatment, it is not a thing of the more, the better for our health.



To sum up, the author's argument is unconvincing for the several aspects I proposed above. To better evaluate it, the author need to provide substantial evidence to prove the conclusion of the study is credible, and suggest the patients take antibiotics under a rigorous supervision will be a better choice.




486 words.

tc1220UID: 2585174

好写法，用让步!
有几个我的观点：
1.仅仅看recuperation time 是不足以说明antibolitics 的好
2.Setting the study which is not cogent aside, even if the antibiotics are effective while used to prevent the patients from secondary infections as the doctors suspected. It is unwarranted to advise every patient who have something to do with muscle strain to take antibiotics. Because it is important to take it properly according to the extent of muscle injury. For some slight injury, there is even on need to take antibiotics. As we know, the abuse of antibiotics will cause the resistance of bacteria and weaken our immune system. So we should be careful and rational when take antibiotics during treatment, it is not a thing of the more, the better for our health.

个人感觉，这一段是在攻击医学常识，不是逻辑错误。

3. 最重要的一点是，个人感觉，第一二句话
"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.

意思是说这个study证明了hypothsis (一个关于secondary infections 的 hypothesis), 但我感觉整个实验都没有加入secondary infection 的东西，都是在研究抗生素的作业，这个没有因果关系啊。

望讨论～

jenius4869UID: 2659821

2# tc1220

刚刚看了一个帖子 https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=412534&extra=page%3D1%26filter%3Dtype%26typeid%3D100
不知道你看了不  例子举得就是这篇文章， 看了以后启发蛮大滴
你说的对呢  主要的逻辑关系应该不是放在Study上 我整个把第一句话忽略了 没有看到他的重要性~  失败啊失败~

tc1220UID: 2585174

看过，不过都不记得了....

1。2个医生背景不同
2。2个实验组的具体情况信息实在太少，不足以判断
3。并不一定所有的病人都会发生2次感染

他的第三点还是把 第一句搞错了，是吧