ARGUMENT51~~求拍求拍求拍 新鲜出炉的第一篇argu

michelle0820UID: 2742470

感激不尽~~~~请猛拍


题目：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."
字数：429          用时：0:27:46          日期：2010/3/24

In this argument, the arguer suggests that all muscle strain patients should take antibiotics to prevent or treat secondary infections. He tries to support his suggestion by providing the result of the study of two groups of patients. However, the statistics are not as convincing as it seems after further examination as the patients' conditions are not comparable, the treatment provided by two different doctors may not be the same, and the other factors which may influence the result of the treatment.

To begin with, there are no evidence showing that two groups of patients are from the same background. It is only mentioned that the first group of patients suffer from muscle injuries, and there is no information concerning the second group of patients. The quick recovery of the first group may be caused by other  reasons, for instance, maybe they are younger than the people in the second group, thus they have a better recovery ability; or they just suffer from less severe or even totally different muscle injuries. As it is mentioned that they are treated for muscle injuries, not to mention that it may not necessarily be muscle strain. Therefore, the two groups may not be comparable.

Secondly, the treatments provided by two different doctors can have some different effects on patients' recovery. As for the first group, they are treated by  a sport medicine specialist. And for the second group, they are treated by a general physician. The treatment methods of two doctors can be totally different. There may be the circumanstance that during the therapeutical process of the first group, some other treatments are added, like physical recovery, etc. And it is these added treatments accelerate the recovery process. Thus, the unclear description of treatment methods weakened the argument.

Also, some other influencial factors can not be neglected. In this study, patients in the second group are given sugar pills. Maybe those sugar pills enhence the symtoms of secondary infection or have other negative effects on the recovery. Such factors can give rise to the postponed recovery date of the second group. Also, the arguer needs to convince the reader that it is the antibiotics the first group take prevent or treat the secondary infectiton.

To conclude, the recommendation that all muscle strain patients should take antibiotics as part of their treatment seems to be unsound as the supportive evidence is unconvincing. In order to make this argument work, the arguer needs to provide more evidence about the comparability of two groups, the identical treatment they receive and to exclude other influencial factors.