【1010G8月AW小组】【我们的小组】ARGUMENT51 by【❀雨】

verydarkUID: 2765585

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - 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, 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."
WORDS: 500
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/7/31 22:11:38

In this newsletter, the arguer recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. A study is cited by the arguer to support this recommendation. Although the argument is well-presented, it is not well-reasoned from my prospective. Close scrutiny reveals that this argument is flawed in several aspects.

A threshold problem with this argument is the percentage of patients who may suffer secondary infections among overall patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain is not given by the arguer. Perhaps there is only an insignificant fraction of patients who have the possibility suffer from secondary infections, and then the necessity of taking any antibiotics is doubtful. If it is the case, then the advice that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as treatment would become useless.

Second, the author fails to give the information concerning the severity of injuries of two groups of patients, as well as their physical conditions, comparatively. Common sense informs me that patients with better physical conditions and less severe injuries would become recuperated far more quickly. It is quite possible that Dr. Newland's group has a relatively better physical conditions or less severe muscle injuries than Dr. Alton's. Without given the detailed information discussed above, I still cannot take the arguer's recommendation seriously.

Even if the two groups have similar injury severity and physical conditions, the arguer fail to consider differences between the two doctors' treatment. As in the argument, Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine, while Dr. Alton is a general physician. It is entirely possible that Dr Newland has other special means in helping his patient recovering faster, which Dr. Alton did not have. If there is any difference in other medicine or exercise which two groups have taken, then the result of the study is dubious.

Finally, even assuming that the antibiotics actually has effective function in recovering of patients who suffer muscle strain, the arguer fail to take the negative effects of the drug into consideration. Perhaps antibiotics have strong side effects to patient and may bring other pains after being taken. Or perhaps some patients have an allergy to such antibiotics, taking such drugs may even cause more severe symptoms. Without further information concerning such possibilities above, the safety to take antibiotics to accelerate recovering is still open to doubt.

To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To make it more acceptable, the arguer should give the incidence percentage of secondary infections in patients who suffer from muscle strain. The arguer must also provide evidence that the severity of injuries and physical conditions of two groups of patients are similar. To better assess the argument, I would also need information about the detailed process of treatment to analyze if there was another differences between the therapeutic methods of two doctors. The arguer is also required to prove that the antibiotics has no strong side effects over patients, and most people are not allergic to the drug.

huashiyiqikeUID: 2674177

In this newsletter, the arguer recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. A study这里要不要具体概括一下？ is cited by the arguer to support this recommendation. Although the argument is well-presented, it is not well-reasoned from my prospective. Close scrutiny reveals that this argument is flawed in several aspects.

A threshold problem with this argument is the percentage of patients who may suffer secondary infections among overall patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain is not given by the arguer. Perhaps there is only an insignificant fraction of patients who have the possibility suffer from secondary infections, and then the necessity of taking any antibiotics is doubtful. If it is the case, then the advice that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as treatment would become useless.还有样本中的比例是否也可以提一下，来说明调查有问题

Second, the author fails to give the information concerning the severity of injuries of two groups of patients, as well as their physical conditions, comparatively. Common sense informs me that patients with better physical conditions and less severe injuries would become recuperated far more quickly. It is quite possible that Dr. Newland's group has a relatively better physical conditions or less severe muscle injuries than Dr. Alton's. Without given the detailed information discussed above, I still cannot take the arguer's recommendation seriously.

Even if the two groups have similar injury severity and physical conditions, the arguer fail to consider differences between the two doctors' treatment. As in the argument, Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine, while Dr. Alton is a general physician. It is entirely possible that Dr Newland has other special means in helping his patient recovering faster, which Dr. Alton did not have. If there is any difference in other medicine or exercise which two groups have taken, then the result of the study is dubious.

Finally, even assuming that the antibiotics actually has effective function in recovering of patients who suffer muscle strain, the arguer fail to take the negative effects of the drug into consideration. Perhaps antibiotics have strong side effects to patient and may bring other pains after being taken. Or perhaps some patients have an allergy to such antibiotics, taking such drugs may even cause more severe symptoms. Without further information concerning such possibilities above, the safety to take antibiotics to accelerate recovering is still open to doubt.

To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To make it more acceptable, the arguer should give the incidence percentage of secondary infections in patients who suffer from muscle strain. The arguer must also provide evidence that the severity of injuries and physical conditions of two groups of patients are similar. To better assess the argument, I would also need information about the detailed process of treatment to analyze if there was another differences between the therapeutic methods of two doctors. The argue is also required to prove that the antibiotics has no strong side effects over patients, and most people are not allergic to the drug. 任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗，most还是不能说明，我觉得是建议本身不尽合理，太绝对了
总体来说非常好，无论是时间还是语言还是结构层次都把握的很到位，很难挑出什么毛病，感觉至少可以在5.5分以上。

verydarkUID: 2765585

我很惭愧...是看完题目写好提纲才开始写的，写完又word改错才发上来的