argument51 第一次批得这么酣畅淋漓……

adcolorsUID: 2256933

个人的写法：


This argument begins with a hypothesis that some patients with severe muscle strain may have secondary infections. Based on two experiments,it concludes that all patients with muscle strain should be treated withantibiotics. However the conclusion is unjustified because the preliminary results of two experiments cannot sufficiently support the hypothesis and the arguer fails to provide sufficient information about the patients.

First of all, the arguer claims that secondary infections are bound to happen to all those with muscle strain. According to the hypothesis, some patients may have secondary infections, but there is no evidence to suggest that any patients with muscle strain will suffer the same symptom. If patients suffer from slight muscle strain, then it is highly impossible secondary infection will occur.Even in the case of severe muscle strain, the symptom may not occur to some patients. Therefore, for patients without secondary infections, taking antibiotics is unnecessary.

Even for those with secondary infection, we cannot be sure antibiotics would be effective because the studies that led to the hypothesis have several weaknesses. First, it is not clear how many patients were involved in each treatment group, and the representativeness of the sample is uncertain. It is not clear whether the groups include patients of various ages with different symptoms, nor is it clear whether patients have similar injuries. We can assume people that go to sports doctors may have more severe injuries than those who go to generalists. It is possible that the doctor who majors in sports medicine may be more experienced at muscle strain treatment than the general physician.As we know people of different ages may respond differently to the same treatments because they have different immune systems. In addition, there is no information about other treatments that may have been administered to the groups; therefore, there is possibility that it's not the antibiotics that affect the recuperation time but other unknown factors.

Furthermore, it is too hasty to recommend all patients to undertake the same treatment。 Because it is entirely possible that other medicine may play the same role as antibiotics，even if the antibiotics treatment for secondary infections ineffective as the argument claims. Another factor one should consider before the hasty generalization is the possible side-effects for patients with different medical history.

In sum, the validity and reliability of the argument is minimized by the weak support to the hypothesis that patients with severe muscle strain may have secondary infections and the vague information provided by the experiments which intend to reveal the effect of antibiotics to cure secondary infection. In addition, provided the diverse reaction by patients with various medical history, one should not generate this antibiotics treatment to such unproven secondary infection.

kimi0428UID: 2592187

12# starshane

我前提是两组患者都存在二次感染了，然后我第二个观点是想攻击“抗生素能帮助治愈二次感染，从而使恢复时间缩短”。

但事实上，抗生素没有起到作用，虽然第一组快但是另外的那些因素可能是导致恢复时间缩短的原因而非抗生素的关系。

不知道我这样说对不对，呵呵！！！~~~谢谢你的指教

wolfmoon426UID: 2741871

第一次写argu就这文章，没想到这个secondary infection,

提纲就和mseyj( 四叶草)一样一样的

1）未提供两组病人的资料：年龄、性别、生理状况。 年轻/弱
    （2）两医生的经验、水平也会影响康复。专业/综合
    （3）糖片也会有影响。

现在看，是不是可以把第一条写成没有提到二次感染，不能证明假设，然后把第一第二条合并



后来我又看了看论坛大大的帖子，对于没背景的survey不应该攻击。那第二条不变吧。