argument51 健康医疗问题 by gypsophila

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

51The 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."


Although the study showed in the argument seems well presented, its reliability is still open to question. It fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis. Meanwhile, the argument suffers some logic flaws before making the conclusion.

First, the way in which the study was conducted is quite questionable. It ignores the health condition of the two groups of patients before treatments. Perhaps, the patients in the first group are not as badly injured as those in the second one, thus, recovering more quickly, not because of taking antibiotics. One must also consider the roles the doctors played in the study. As it is said in the argument, the two groups were treated separately by two different doctors, who may differ from each other in experiences and skills. It is entirely possible that Dr. Newland, who is specialized in sports medicine, has more experiences in treating muscle injures. He may have giving his patients extra treatments to help the patients recover as compared with Dr. Alton. Consequently, the reliability of the study is undermined owing to theses factors, which could not prove
that it is the antibiotics that help the patients healing quickly.

Secondly, the author fails to establish any relationship between the study and the hypothesis to prove that the secondary infections could prevent patients from healing from muscle injuries quickly. Since it is not mentioned whether the two groups of patients had secondary infections or not before the study, we can not see its effects of delaying the recovery. In order to prove the hypothesis, the two existing groups should be with muscle injured patients without secondary infections, and another group with secondary infections patients is needed.

Even if the study is well conducted and antibiotics turn out to be beneficial to accelerate the recovery from muscle injuries, the conclusion that all patients should be advised to take antibiotics is tremendously unreasonable. Are antibiotics suitable for every person? Some individuals, allergic to antibiotics such as penicillin, even die of such medicines. Besides, are there any other medicines that are more effective and have fewer side effects than antibiotics? Will they be more cheap and common? Without evaluating these possibilities, the conclusion seems unconvincing.

To sum up, the argument is weak based on the unreliable study to claim that secondary infections could make the patients recover from muscle injuries lower and on the opposite, antibiotics could make the process quicker, which therefore should be applied to every patient. It would be forceful by improving the study as well as by taking into account all possibilities.

colin8741UID: 2835824

Although the study showed in the argument seems well presented, its reliability is still open to question. It fails to provide sufficient evidences to support the hypothesis. Meanwhile, the argument suffers some logical flaws before making the conclusion.

First, the way in which the study was conducted is quite questionable. It ignores the health condition of the two groups of patients before treatments. Perhaps, the patients in the first group are not as badly injured as those in the second one, thus, recovering more quickly, not because of taking antibiotics. One must also consider the roles the doctors played in the study. As it is said in the argument, the two groups were treated separately by two different doctors, who may differ from each other in experiences and skills. It is entirely possible that Dr. Newland, who is specialized in sports medicine, has more experiences in treating muscle injures. He may have giving(given) his patients extra treatments to help the patients (to)recover as compared with Dr. Alton. Consequently, the reliability of the study is undermined owing to theses factors, which could not prove that it is the antibiotics that help the patients healing quickly.

Secondly, the author fails to establish any relationship between the study and the hypothesis to prove that the secondary infections could prevent patients from healing from muscle injuries quickly. Since it is not mentioned whether the two groups of patients had secondary infections or not before the study, we can not see its effects of delaying the recovery. In order to prove the hypothesis, the two existing groups should be with muscle injured patients without secondary infections, and another group with secondary infections patients is needed.

Even if the study is well conducted and antibiotics turn out to be beneficial to accelerate the recovery from muscle injuries, the conclusion that all patients should be advised to take antibiotics is tremendously unreasonable. Are antibiotics suitable for every person? Some individuals, allergic to antibiotics such as penicillin, even die of such medicines. Besides, are there any other medicines that are more effective and have fewer side effects than antibiotics? Will they be more cheap and common? Without evaluating these possibilities, the conclusion seems unconvincing.

To sum up, the argument is weak based on the unreliable study to claim that secondary infections could make the patients recover from muscle injuries lower and on the opposite, antibiotics could make the process quicker, which therefore should be applied to every patient. It would be forceful by improving the study as well as by taking into account all possibilities.

你写的比我好很多~嗯嗯，觉得论点什么的都不错，继续加油吧

yuling-10GUID: 2849632

Consequently, the reliability of the study is undermined owing to theses factors, which could not prove
that it is the antibiotics that help the patients healing (heal)quickly.


ps:
你写的太好了，我不知道改什么~~