Argument51，第三篇，壶盖吧

zhangx125UID: 2352430

题目：
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."

内容：
    The argument above is well-presented, but not thoroughly well reasoned. The author concludes that all patients suffered from muscle strain should take antibiotics, and the hypothesis that secondary infections prolong the recuperation time is right. And, the mere evidence is the results of a study, concerning the different time two groups of patients need to heal from muscle injuries, which seems logical but contains several fallacies.

    First, the author fails to convince me that the study is well conducted and I already find out some apparent flaws from it. There is no evidence to show me that the two groups of patients studied are the same in all other aspects except what pills they take during their treatment, maybe other factors cause the difference in time. It's possible that the classification of the two groups already determines the expectable result. If the patients of first group are averagely stronger than those in second, it is reasoned to believe that group one can heal faster. Even the author does not tell whether they are suffering more or less the same level injuries, the two groups should not be put together to compare. Furthermore, the doctor who treats the patients is important as treatment to any illness is not only giving pills but also communicating with them, pacifying their heart-pain. A brisk heart can accelerate the recovery. As the author tells us, Dr. Newland is a doctor specializing in sports medicine, who must be very experienced in treating muscle injuries, while Dr. Alton is just a general physician who may not know how to talk with patients and break their worries. This may attribute to the longer time to recuperate for group two.

    Secondly, patients in group two don't necessarily suffer a secondary infection, while, someones in group one may suffer a secondary infection but they can still recover faster. Unless more information about patients who suffer a secondary infection is provided, the hypothesis that secondary infections prolong the recuperation time from severe muscle strain can not be proved. On the other hand , even assuming the results of the study mentioned in the beginning are valid, the hypothesis also can't be substantiated. The author makes a false analogy between severe muscle strain and muscle injuries. Perhaps, the antibiotics treatment which leads the rate of secondary infection to decrease intensely is very effective on the muscle injuries in the study. When applied to severe muscle strain, the antibiotics treatment may not be so effective. It is possible that other measures, such as surgery, will be better.

     Last but not least, the author does not provide enough evidence to testify that taking antibiotics is the best way to treat muscle strain and it is suitable for all patients of that kind. "40 percent quicker than typically expected" may be insignificant compared with the efficacy of other methods. Besides, the argument does not mention the byproduction of antibiotics treatment, and It's possible that some patients are allergic to it. If misusage happens, fatal injuries may be brought about.

     In sum, the reasoning behind taking antibiotics as part of their treatment for all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain seems convincing, however, with the fallacious study, the antibiotics treatment should be taken carefully to any patient. Also, the author should rule out these possibilities before any conclusion is made.

xiaoyaozi5566UID: 2510336

互改咯，支持

lamb11UID: 2800582

这个好难啊，原来都没看过，secondary infections和实验中所提到的ntibiotics有什么联系？？谁能解释解释

zhangx125UID: 2352430

antibiotics能防止secondary infections，信的作者认为，抗生素治疗 = 防止了二次感染，所以为了证明“secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain”，他就搬出了这个抗生素治疗的研究。 3# lamb11

zhangx125UID: 2352430

信步蠹蛾的已改，请检阅！从别人的文章中还是学了不少啊！ 2# xiaoyaozi5566

信步蠹蛾UID: 2760227

The argument above is well-presented, but not thoroughly well reasoned. The author concludes that all patients suffered from muscle strain should take antibiotics, and the hypothesis that secondary infections prolong the recuperation time is right. And(but), the mere evidence is
the results of a study concerning the different time between two groups of patients need to heal from muscle injuries, which seems logical but contains several fallacies.

    First, the author fails to convince me that the study is well conducted and I already find out some apparent flaws from it. There is no evidence to show me (showing)that the two groups of patients studied are the same in all other aspects except what pills they take during their treatment, maybe other factors cause the difference in time. It's possible that the classification of the two groups already determines the expectable result. If the patients of first group are averagely stronger than those in second, it is reasoned to believe that group one
can heal faster. Even(since) the author does not tell whether they are suffering more or less the same level injuries, the two groups should(might) not be put together to compare. Furthermore, the doctor who treats the patients is important as treatment to any illness is not only giving pills but also communicating with them, pacifying their heart-pain. A brisk(relaxing) heart can accelerate the recovery. As the author tells us, Dr. Newland is a doctor specializing in sports medicine, who must be very experienced in treating muscle injuries, while Dr. Alton is just a general physician who may not know how to talk with patients and break their worries. This may attribute to the longer time to recuperate for group two.(这段的第二个理由太啰嗦了，100多字！其实不用狼么琐碎地扯到病人的心情和“谈话治疗”，直接说Dr. N比Dr. A更专业更有经验的就行，比如Furthermore, as the author mentioned, Dr. N is a specialist who must be more experienced in dealing with such injuries while Dr. A is general physician who may be not well-qualified in treating severe muscle strain. Perhaps the different doctors should be responsible for the differences in time between the two groups. 字数减一半~)

    Secondly, patients in group two don't necessarily suffer a secondary infection, while, someone in group one may suffer a secondary infection but they can still recover faster. Unless more information about patients who suffer a secondary infection is provided, the hypothesis that secondary infections prolong the recuperation time from severe muscle strain can not be proved. On the other hand , even assuming the results of the study mentioned in the beginning are valid, the hypothesis also can't be substantiated. The author makes a false analogy between severe muscle strain and muscle injuries. Perhaps, the antibiotics treatment which leads the rate of secondary infection to decrease intensely is very effective on the muscle injuries in the study. When applied to (other) severe muscle strain, the antibiotics treatment may not be so effective. It is possible that other measures, such as surgery, will be better.（这段MS有点乱啊，与其说假设不成立，还不说质疑那些病人是否真的二次感染了；The author makes a false analogy…这部分似乎本段前部分关系不大，要么单独弄一段，要么干脆不写了，
个人意见哈~）

     Last but not least, the author does not provide enough evidence to testify that taking antibiotics is the best way to treat muscle strain and it is suitable for all patients of that kind. "40 percent quicker than typically expected" may be insignificant compared with the efficacy of other methods.(40%还不显著说不过去吧，表这么直白，说其他治疗法可能更有效就好了) Besides, the argument does not mention the (potential) byproduction(byproduct) of antibiotics treatment, and It's possible that some patients are allergic to it. If misusage happens, fatal injuries may be brought about.

     In sum, the reasoning behind taking antibiotics as part of their treatment for all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain seems convincing, however, with the fallacious study, the antibiotics treatment should be taken carefully to any patient. Also, the author should rule out these possibilities before any conclusion is made.




标红的原文太累赘，可以删的


礼尚往来改一改，8过偶英文很烂的，表被偶误导了~




PS。你30分钟可以写550字？怎么办到的？

zhangx125UID: 2352430

我没数过多少字，写到没东西写了就停了。呵呵
PS:我不是30分钟写完的，写了有不到一小时吧，速度太慢了！！！ 6# 信步蠹蛾