[复习求助] Argument 51 高频第一道~！（这样写是不是模板太严重了？）

zoee_zinUID: 2572040

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 argument,the arguer concludes that the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this conclusion,the arguer point out  that secondary infections may keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. In addition, the arguer cites the result of a resent study that the patients that treated by a doctor who specializes in sports medicine with antibiotics heal more quickly that typically expected,while other patients treated by a general physician with sugar pills ,which pretended to be antibiotics, heal as slowly as typically expected.This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

The outset problem is that the arguer assumes that the secondary inflections will be surely happened in all patients who suffered from muscle injuries.Although this is completely possible,the argument is failed to give some evidences to support this assumption.It is all probability that most patients with muscle strain can hardly get secondary infections.For instance, most patiences may have favorable convalescent environment,so that they can avoid secondary inflections by accepting excellent treatments.

The second flaw that weaken the logic of this argument is that the result of the resent study is lacked of persuasion.The arguer cites a grouping study without any information of the patients in each groups.It is quit possible that patients in the first group with antibiotics are younger than the second group,and they're in better physical state,so their recuperation time was quicker than the second groups.In addition,different technical level of doctors can influence the conclusion of the study.Apparently,the doctor in first group who specializes in sports medicine knows the muscle problems better than the general physician in second group.So the healing time of the patients is differ may be caused by the doctor rather than the antibiotics.Thirdly,there is no evidence showed that the sugar pills for the patients in second group wouldn't influence the healing time.It is very likely that the sugar pills may increase the healing time of muscle strain.

The last but not the least flaw of this argument is that even if all the evidences above can support the foregoing assumptions,the arguer just ignore the fact that antibiotics may have serious side-effect for part patients.Some patients may be irritable to the antibiotics,so taking antibiotics may cause other diseases that more serious than muscle strain.Under any scenario,adopting the arguer's proposal might harm rather than benefit.

To sum up, the arguer’s argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.

大家帮忙来拍拍，第一次写argument，13号考试了。。。额，完全抓狂中。。。

zoee_zinUID: 2572040

自己顶一下~

霁月难逢UID: 2718354

模板确实很严重