求拍 Agument51

gengshuotianUID: 2672308

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."


In the argument, the author concludes that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should be suggested to take antibiotics. Careful examination of the study the author cited to support the argument, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the conclusion.

Firstly, as the argument mentioned, the study is a preliminary one so the conclusion is not convincing. Perhaps the further research will overturn the current conclusion. In addition,it's unclear that whether there is a selection bias in the sample of the study. The author fails to inform us other factors of the two groups which influence the recuperation time, such as age and the severity degree of the muscle strain. It 's entirely possible that the average age of the
second group is older than the first group so they undergo a longer process of healing. At such circumstances, antibiotics should not be considered as the main reason of the healing differences between two groups.

Secondly, even if the factors about the patients are the same between the two groups, the doctors can also cause the deference of recuperation time. Different doctors have different experiences and provide different treatments. The doctor of the first group is a specialist in sports medicine as the argument mentioned while the doctor of the second group is a general physician. Common sense tells us that the first doctor should be better at curing muscle strain than the second one which attributes to the shorter recuperation time. If he is famous among the patients and the study let the patient choose their doctor freely , this effect will further undermine the conclusion.

Finally, in asserting antibiotics should be a part of the treatment for muscle strains, the arguer overlooks the negative effects that antibiotics might have. Regular intake of antibiotics might result in drug resistance and some people may be hypersensitive. So it is too hasty for the arguer to recommend all the patients to take antibiotics.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing. To bolster the conclusion, the author should provide more details about the study including the sample selection, the difference of treatments offered by the two doctors. What’s more further research should be conducted to study the effect of antibiotics for muscle strains.

海王泪UID: 2673613

让自己的作文被改主要有以下几种途径：
1、参与/组建互助小组；
2、主动出击，到别人的习作中改别人的文章，然后留下连接请求回拍，绝大部分情况下版友都会很负责的回拍的；
3、斑竹定期会开习作修改铺，在里面占位置就可以让斑竹修改你的习作；
4、同主题写作时会规定参与的版友按照一定的回贴顺序进行互改；
5、坐等别人来拍，由于习作量很大，这种概率很小，所以效率也很低，建议不要采用。

smilinglUID: 2684200

转眼就看见和自己写同一篇的同志……
那啥，这是我昨天写的，楼主咱来回拍哈
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1082120-1-1.html

我觉得楼主的文字比我流畅多了，先学习之，第三段里提到患者自由选择医师的问题，思路很开阔呀

头两点大概是最容易想到的，我也写了，然后服用抗生素会有不良影响，这个可以说是逻辑错误吗？我不这么认为，当然也是没想到……
另外我文里还说了一个，在作者提到的抽样中，抗生素是不是针对二次感染的值得怀疑，他完全没提受试者的二次感染比率。既然二次感染是作者提出抗生素的一个前提，这个是不是也说一下比较好？
最后有好心人给我提的，样本数量能不能代表整体的问题，还有损伤的程度问题

坐等楼主回拍，捂脸飘~~~~

Eileen12361UID: 2775275

同意楼上观点哈~
我的思路是：
肌肉严重损伤后会引起二次感染影响恢复。这个假说其实有两点：一严重损伤后会引起二次感染；二、二次感染影响恢复。但作者仅仅用两组肌肉损伤的研究来证实，很难论证这两个假设。所以这两个样品调查与这个假说其实没有什么联系。。。
再次论证关于抗生素的推广的逻辑问题....

楼主的第一条我觉得论据很充实，但好像不是围绕首句的（如果这是你该段中心论点的话~）。。。个人觉得药物研发投入实际使用的前期就是临床试验啊，如果以此来否定作者的结论似乎有些牵强。如果把中心论点放在攻击这个study上（其实论据就是这样论证的...）可能会更有力一些哦~
然后小问一下，与首段相比，楼主是否结束的时候过于匆忙了哦。。。那些句子好像可以写的更splendid...


呵呵，个人意见哈，仅供参考~
让我们一起加油~