argument51 第一次写 求拍~~~

zmy1029UID: 2537885

In this newsletter, the author recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would have to take antibiotics as part of the treatment. To support this recommendation, the author cites a study of two groups that treated by different doctors and given antibiotics and sugar pills result in antibiotics group's recuperation time was 40 percent quicker than sugar pills group. This argument contains several critical flaws, which render it unpersuasive.

First of all, the study lacks sufficient information about the severity of injuries and physical condition of two groups of patients. To begin with, the study proves the hypothesis that antibiotics could shorten the reception time of secondary infections after muscle strain. The author provides no evidence that whether the muscle strain patient who participate the study have a secondary infection. In addition, It is entirely possible that the first group patients were more physically fit than the second group to begin with, or that the second group injured more serious than the first group. Moreover, the study provides no evidence about the number or percentage of patients who participate in the study. Unless all other conditions potentially affecting two groups of patients’ physical condition remained constant and during the study and any conclusions from the study are simply unreliable.

Secondly, the author unfairly assumes that Dr. Newland in antibiotics group who specializes in sports medicine and Dr. Alton who is a general physician doctor have no difference. However, the author overlooks the fact that doctor play a significant role throughout the treatment, vary widely from experience, skill, and field . A psychological patient treated by a famous bone doctor cannot be well healed. Experience tells me, a sports medicine specialist is more suitable to treat muscle strain patient.

Thirdly, in the study, the patients in the second group were given sugar pills in order to be compared with antibiotics group but didn’t tell patients in case they have negative psychology. However, the author provides no evidence that sugar pills have no effect on secondary infections, perhaps it in turn to have unwanted side on secondary infections that delayed the recuperation time of the second group.

Finally, even if the author can substantiate all of the foregoing assumption that two groups of patients were under same physical condition, suffered same severity of injuries, treated by same doctors, and even sugar pills have no effect on secondary infections. Even if the study proves antibiotics do have effect on shorten the reception time of secondary infection after muscle infection. The author’s assertion that all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is still unwarranted in two respects. First, patient who suffer muscle strain not always have a secondary infection. Second, the suggestion that all the patients take antibiotics is unsuitable. As I know, a part of people are allergic to antibiotics, penicillin, for instance, according to their physical constitution and genetic predisposition. For that matter, the author’s conclusion is unjustifiable.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the assertion that antibiotics provide an effect on secondary infection, the author must provide evidence that the test subjects’ physical condition, severity of injuries, doctors remained constant throughout the study, and that sugar pills which given to second group have no effect on the process of treatment. To better assess the argument, the author should provide evidence that patients who advised to take antibiotics have a secondary infection after muscle strain and they are not allergic to antibiotics.

（592 words）


第一次写 没有计时，用了挺长时间，把想到的都写了，字数有点多了，求指教~~~~