【Flyer杀G作文组】6.22-ARGUMENT 50-By 大熊

大熊乖乖UID: 2821292

In this argument, the arguer attempts to convince us that patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. At first glance, this argument might seem to be reasonable, but further reflection reveals that all these evidences presented by the arguer do not constitute a logical statement in support of its recommendation for the following reasons.

A threshold problem with this argument involves these two groups of patients. The author fails to provide any evidence to prove that these patients are suffered by secondary infections. Furthermore, the author also fails to demonstrate the similarities of these two groups. Lacking such crucial evidence, it is entirely possible that patients of the first group consist of youth, while patients of the second group only include the elderly. Naturally, the recovery time of first group would be shorter than that of the second one. Therefore, until the author could substantiate the relationship between these patients and secondary infections, and point out the similarities of these two group, it is presumptuous to draw any conclusion about healing after severe muscle strain.

The second flaw that weakens the logic of this argument is that the author simply assumes that antibiotics could reduce the recuperation time by 40%. However, he overlooks the possibility that the different treating abilities of Dr. Newland and Dr. Alton might also contribute to the different recuperation time. Maybe Dr. Newland specializes in treating muscle injuries, which could also result in a quicker recovery. Perhaps he gives his patients some other pills or other treating methods for their recuperation. Hence, without accounting for and ruling out other alternative reasons which might decrease the recuperation time, the author could not convince me at all.

The last but not the least important, even if the author could substantiate all the foregoing assumptions, he assumes that the average recovery time of the second group was not significantly reduced. But the author does not offer any evidence about the sugar pills. Perhaps these sugar pills might have effects on these patients. He also fails to point out the actual reduced recuperation time. It is highly possible that the decreased time of the second group is almost the same as that of the first one. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the claim that antibiotics would serve to the recovery of muscle strain.

To sum up, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, further investigation and analysis are needed to the similarities of these two groups. Additionally, the author would provide more information to eliminate all other possible explanations for the effects of antibiotics and sugar pills on the patients.