Argument51 首作求拍

FELINE0_8UID: 2248931

Asserting that secondary infections hinder patients from the recovery of  severe muscle strain, this paragraph in the newsletter quoted a study of two groups of patients suffered from mascle strain treated by sports medicine specialist Dr.Newland and general physician Dr.Alton,with the former group treated with antibiotics and second group with pacifiers as the supporting evidence.The different recuperation rate demonstrated that "all patients who are dignosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."

As credible as it seems to be at the first glance,this claim suffers from major logical errors after close scrutinizing.For one,the logic of the whole paragraph,as stated in the above paragraph,is dubious.The author used this logic:1)the study proves antibiotic takes its effect for the recovery of muscle strain,2)so that the recovery of mucsle strain is influenced by secondary infections.Let alone the credibility of the study(which will be mentioned later in this essay),whether one study,and one study only is able to support a claim is under serious doubt,as the authority of the study and the acceptance of the study in the academia and industry is not mentioned.Even if we assume the study proves antibiotic's mariculous effect for the treatment of muscle strain,the conclusion that the author confidently provided still cannot be reached,as the causal relationship between antibiotics and secondary infections is not explained at all.In fact,no relationship between the two is mentioned,making the goal that the author wanted to prove and the conclusion he finally reached totally different,in other words,the link between claim 1) and 2) does not exist,which caused confusion in the reader's mind.What is worse,no evidence is given to support the causal relationship between muscle strain and the second infection.As an article of a professional use,neither of the term "second infection" and "muscle strain"is defined in the article,and there's an absolute information gap for the two.This resulted in the failure of proving the claim 2).Since neither of the two claims in the logic chain stands,we are confident to declare that this article failed to prove its thesis.

The blunder in logic that the author committed is fatal,yet this is not the only mistake.Unfortunately,the major--and only--evidence this article relied on is suspicious.For newsletters of professional or acdemic use,the accuracy and credibility of the information provided is essential.Thus,for the slightest demand,the source of the study should be stated explicitly,like who conducted the study under the circumstances of what,when and where this study is conducted,and where did the final presentation of the study published(In other words,where did the newsletter gets the info).And the above information is clearly not stated at all in the article,driving the reader's mind to doubt if the study exists at all.Even if we are being tolerant to accept this fact,other fallacies of the study keep weakening its effectiveness.Could two groups of patient prove a claim?The pool of the testers should be large enough to hold in diverse cases so that the result won't be oversimplified and biased.Are the patients informed of the content of the study when they were tested?The objectivity of the result could be greatly reduced if certain expectations were made by the patients.Are antibiotics and pacifiers the only difference in the treatment between the two group?Did the two doctors,sports medicine specialist and  general physician treat their patients in the same way? What about nurses?Studies proved that somtimes little things irrelevant of medical technique that the doctors and the nurses did have obvious effect on the recovery of the patients,like the frequency of  smiling,and the way of wording when they treat the patient.It is highly possible that Dr.Newland's patients recovers quicker because he smiles much,or the nurse responsible for them are so irratating that they wanted to leave the hospital as soon as possible.Also,the background of the two group of patients is not mentioned.It could be that the first group recovers better because they are all members of a school baseball league,while the second group members are elders above 60 years old.Their recovery rate,for sure,is not comparable.Could the article rule out these possiblities?

The list could continue on and on,but one fact is certain:that this article does not stand.Apart  from the two fatal blunder that this article made,minor mistakes exist in an amount like the sand in a beach.The key terms were not defined,and the thesis is not explained;the number cited in the article(40%)is given no illustration;ambiguous claims like "average recuperation time was not significantly reduced"exists(how much is "significantly reduced"?),and blur of expression abounds(like "patients believed they were taking antibiotics",how can it be sure that they "believed"?what's the sign?). If major adjustments in structure is not made,we would advise the editorial board not to publish this article at all for the sake of the reputation of the medical newsletter.



p.s.小的8月22号HK机考，这是第一次A练习。此前未进行任何培训，未背模板未看范文，定有无穷疏落，还请各位高人指教。