[a习作temp] Argument51求拍！有拍必回！ [复制链接]

wqqingtian
UID: 2594382

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 1
寄托币: 106
注册时间: 2009-1-23
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-3-25 20:16:25 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 Bela1229 于 2010-3-25 21:01 编辑

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: 512 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2010/3/25 19:36:43

The author presents a study of two groups of people treated by different doctors to prove the hypothesis. Given the hypothesis is proved, the author suggest that all patients suffering from muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics to prevent second infections and recover sooner. Though the author's reasoning seems logically but the flaws in his/her statement are obvious. The comparison in the study is not complete which harms the credibility of the study. Also, the suggestion of the author is not reasonable for he/she overlooks the differences between different patients which may be critical to the effect of antibiotics.

The study which the author presents is mainly about a comparison between two groups of people, which lacks many variable elements. First, the study did not take the differences between the two doctors into consideration. It is common sense that different doctors may have different specialized skills and are good at treating different diseases. The doctor in the first group is specialized in sports medicine which may treat injuries from sports, which includes muscle strain well. But the doctor of the second group is a general physician, who may not be good at treating patients with muscle injuries. So the shorter average recuperation time of the first group may be a consequence of better treatment of the specialized doctor other than the effect of antibiotics. In addition to overlooking the element of doctors, the author also does not provide any further information about the patients in the two groups which may be critical to the result of the study. It is entire possible that the patients in the first group may suffer a much less serious muscle strain than that the second group do, which may lead to the shorter recuperation time of the first group. Apart from the severity, the people in the first group may be stronger and healthier which may all contribute to their recovery. Lacking the information about the patients, the conclusion of the study is not credible and convincing. So the correctness of the hypothesis is still in doubt. Consequently the suggestion is obviously not proper.

Even though I accept the hypothesis, the suggestion of the author is still not well considered. The author suggests all the patients with muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics without considering the differences among the patients, which may lead to ineffective or even harmful treatment. Not all kinds of muscle strain will lead to infection. The antibiotics gave to people with muscle strain which does not cause infection may probably be wasted as these people do not suffer from infection. Also, the author fails to take people who are allergic to antibiotics into consideration; giving them antibiotics may even kill them.

After all, the author's suggestion is based on an incomplete study and lacks careful consideration, which may even bring negative effects to patients. I strongly suggest the author should first perfect the study and take the different situations of different patients into consideration, and then the adjusted suggestion may be useful to hospitals and helpful to patients.