小菜的第一篇Argu....求重拍狂拍各种拍.......::z3

henry_xjtuUID: 2859204

小弟23号西安机考，今天第一次写argu，今天早上8点钟死撑着爬起来含着眼泪憋了433个字。。。请各位不吝赐教。。。:dizzy: :dizzy:




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, 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."




     In this letter, the speaker recommended that all patients who suffer from muscle strain are advised to take antibiotics to avoid secondary infections. To support this recommendation, the speaker cited a study in which patients are separated in two groups to receive differed treatments. At first glance, the recommendation seems to be logically coherent and reasonable, however, a careful examination of this argument show that the recommendation is base on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions which largely declined the strength of it , and untimately made it unpersuasive.

     A threshold assumption is that the sample of the study is representative and randomly selected, however, the speaker failed to substantiated this assumption. It is entirely possible that the study is conducted on only a small amount of patients and that the patients are not evenly separated into two group. Without ruling out these scenarios, the speaker can not guarantee the representativeness of the study, and moreover, the authority of the recommendation.

     Even assuming that the sample is representative and randomly selected, the recommendation is based on additional assumption that the reduced recuperation time of first group results from the use of antibiotics. However, common sense inform me that it is not the case. A myriad of other factors may contributed to the phenomenon. For example, the average health condition of patients in group first may be better to those in group two, or in the first group patients' muscle injuries may not be as severe as those in group two, both of the two scenarios make it natural that it take shorter time for patients in group one to recuperate.

     What's more, the speaker failed to inform us whether the study is conducted under the same circumstance in both two groups. Noticing the fact that the treatments for two groups are given by two doctors who specialize in different medical fields, it is entirely possible that the patients in two  groups receive distinguished, and even totally different medical treatments except for the pills they take in. This potential possibility make the speaker could not safely draw the conclusion that it is the antibiotics resulted in the different effects in the study, and accordingly the recommendation to take antibiotics as part of treatment become unwarranted.

     To conclude, if the recommendation is to be a persuasive one, the speaker must provide clear evidences that the sample of the study is representative and randomly selected and that it is the antibiotics rather than other factors that have make patients recover sooner. What's more, the speaker also need to guarantee the circumstances of the two group is the same.