Definitely, a victory 小组第1次作业 argument51 by 10号；9号修改

wdx19861106UID: 2821198

51. The following appeared in a medical news letter.
"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 this argument, the author concludes that patients are kept from healing by secondary infections. To supports his conclusion, the author points out that taking antibiotics will reduce the recuperation time by 40 percents. Further more, he also takes Dr. Newland’s experiments as evidence. （感觉此句可以删除。）At first glance, the author’s argument appears to be somewhat persuasive, while a close examination will reveal how groundless it is. We do not have look very far to see the invalidity of this argument is problematic for following reason.（不错的衔接）


First of all, the argument commits the logical fallacy of “after taking antibiotics, the patients have 40 percents quicker recovery”. In no case can the mere fact that the infection reduces the recuperation. Taking antibiotics can reduce the cure time can not be cited as evidence to support the assumption that there is a cause-effect relationship between recuperation and secondary infection. Perhaps the antibiotic itself can enhance the recovery speed while the infection reduces the recovery（该句感觉删除好些）. The author obviously neglected the function of the antibiotic itself. And besides that, are the patients infected? It is not likely that every patient had an infection. If it is not, how can the author suspect that the infection causes the suppression? Other than that, the argument does not provide any information about the antibiotic which is taken by the patients of treatment group. Different antibiotic will lead to diverse results. Just as I mentioned above, probably the certain antibiotic can improve the recovery speed. Unless the author can demonstrate that every patient in the group is infected and excludes the possibility that the antibiotic can be helpful to recuperation, this assumption in question can be accepted

Second, the author does not provide enough information about the experiment. About the samples, the patients, we can not conclude that whether the patient suffered the severe muscle strain in the same level. The patients who were distributed coincidently in the group which is recovered quicker are not severely as the ones in other group. Even more, the author does not provide the situation of the patient. The age, the gender, the region in body suffer the severe muscle strain are all great effects to the outcome. Therefore, this argument in question should not to be adopted without sufficient information that can ruling out the possibility of individual difference.

Third, in the argument, we can not neglect that the patients other group are taking sugar as substitution. It is not wise to exclude the possibility that the sugar will elevate the load of recovery. （此观点有新意，应稍微展开一点。）

In conclusion, it is imprudent for the statement that secondary infection is the main interference of recuperation on the basis of the evidence presented, because the evidence neglects too much possibilities. The tiny difference may lead to distinct results. We should never take the situations evenly. And I would judge the credibility until the arguer provides concrete evidence to rule out all the possibilities.
（该文个人感觉写的不错，有足够的论点辩驳statement的内容。）