[a习作temp] Argument51 仍然是不限时的烂作文求拍 [复制链接]

smilingl
UID: 2684200

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 133
注册时间: 2009-8-17
精华: 0
帖子: 5

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-4-6 17:06:13 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 Bela1229 于 2010-4-7 16:10 编辑

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."

This argument's conclusion is that all the patients have severe muscle strain should take antibiotics to speed their healing. To justify this conclusion the argument points out that there's suspicion of keeping muscle strain patients from healing quickly by secondary infections. The author also cites a survey at two group of patients that first group took antibiotics regularly during the treatment of a doctor specializes in sports medicine recuperated quicker than the other group, who took only sugar pills during the treatment of a general doctor. I find the argument unpersuasive for several reasons.

First, the author of this argument has no evidence that the two group of patients are in the same health conditions. It is quite possible that the patients of first group were selected from athlete whose recover ability is higher than common ones. Or perhaps the second group is just a group of weak people that usually heal slow. There's another possibility that the level of the muscle injuries the patients of first group had is lower than the other group, which will affect the time of healing. Since the author fails to account the alternative explanation of healing time, he cannot make any sound recommendations to the effect of the antibiotics in treatment.

Second, even if the author proves that the health condition and the injury level of the two group are equal, there's another dissimilar factor that the two doctors who took the treatment of the two group specialize in different fields. Dr. Newland with responsibility of first group specialize in sports medicine, who may have more experience in treating muscle injury than Dr. Alton, who takes charge of the second group, for the latter is a general physician. Thus, it is possibly the healing method but not the antibiotics which makes the healing time shorten. The author offers no evidence that there's any different between the method of treatment took by the two doctors.

Last but not least, the author fails to take into account the rate of the secondary infections taken place in the two group of patients, which will not prove that it is secondary infections that impedes the recovery. For instance, it may be possible that the subjects of two groups have a touch of flu because of the weather condition. The patients of first group defense against the virus by taking antibiotics and heal quickly. The other group ones become weak for catching cold and the recovery therefor is slow. In fact, the argument has not shown the ability of antibiotics in anticipating the secondary infections at all.

In conclusion, the recommendation for speeding the healing by taking antibiotics as part of the treatment of muscle strain is not well supported. The author must show more information about the health condition of the patients, the treatment ability of the doctors and the ratio of the patients who had the secondary infections. Thus the effect of antibiotics in treatment will be determined.