【Flyer杀G作文组】06月22日Argument-By 潇

红绡UID: 2839171

ARGUMENT 51

51，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(3), although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced(1,2). Therefore, all patients(4) who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics(5) as part of their treatment."



This medical newsletter recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics. To support the recommendation the newsletter relies on preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. One group of patients who took antibiotics regularly throughout the treatment was treated for muscle injuries by a doctor who specializes in sports medicine. And the result was their recuperation time was 40 percent quicker than expected on average. The other group of patients who were given sugar pills and believed they were taking antibiotics was treated by a general physician and the recuperation time was not reduced obviously.
However, the recommendation is artificial because the study in contrasts was not strict.

To begin with, the argument isn’t established on a firm precondition. This study stands on the basis that secondary infection would happen affirmatively. But there is no evidence provided to prove this premise that secondary infection must occur on the patients who are muscle strain or are susceptible to infect again.

As for the study that the newsletter cites, there are several critical respects which flaw the argument logically. First of all, the arguer hasn’t offer any materials about the two groups of patients related to their age, gender or any other physiological features. Also he didn’t supply the data about their patrography. If the group of patients who took antibiotics are younger and have a better physical quality than the patients who took the sugar pills, the contrast result between two groups couldn’t prove that antibiotics worked on the disease. Second, we can notice that in these two groups there are two doctors with different experience and inequable medical level. Generally, the doctor who specializes in sports medicine would learn more about the muscle strain and more experienced than the general physician, so this distinguish probably leads to the healing efficacy. It also can’t prove the effect of antibiotics. Finally, there is no proof indicating if the sugar pills have side effects for the patients’ healing. If the sugar pills would disturb the recovery of the patients, the argument could not still be proved.

In sum, to advance the persuasion, the arguer should provide more materials aimed at the leaks. He should provide the probability of the muscle strain patients who infect secondly and improve the study reasonable which would confirm that antibiotics would accelerate the rate of healing at the same situations such as doctor, symptom of disease, physiological conditions and the treatment methods and circumstance.