Argument 51_彼岸小组第一次作业_by McNeil

McNeilUID: 2272415

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appearedin a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected thatsecondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severemuscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of astudy of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treatedfor muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sportsmedicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Theirrecuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected.Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a generalphysician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they weretaking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantlyreduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would bewell advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."




In the argument, the author advocates thatall patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain had better take antibioticsas part of their treatment. To suggest his recommendation, the arguer cites theresults of a study of two groups of patients that one took antibioticsregularly through the treatment meanwhile the other one didn't. Comparing the averagerecuperation time of these two groups, the arguer make the final conclusion.However, the argument suffers from several critical flaws.

To begin with, the hypothesis thatsecondary infections may keep patients from recovering after severe muscle straincouldn't be proved by the results of the study at all. Because of the vaguerelationship between the antibiotics and the secondary infections, a study ofthe function of antibiotics in the treatment for muscle injures couldn't explainanything about how secondary infections plays a negative role in the recoveryafter serious muscle strain. To make the argument acceptable, the author shouldindicate how the antibiotics influence the secondary infections at first.

Secondly, the arguer fails to rule out otherpossible causal factors that may lead to the average recuperation reducing inthe first group. For instance, the doctor for the patients in the first groupis one who specializes in sports medicine and the doctor in the second group isjust a general physician. Apparently, the study lacks the basic equity for thereason that a doctor who has more specialized professional knowledge andexperience in treating for muscle injures may give the patients more helpfuland constructive advises. Furthermore, he or she may instruct the patient to dosome beneficial exercise that contributes to recuperating quickly.

What’s more, we have no idea of how manypatients participate in the study and how the study is conducted. Thus, it isquite questionable that recuperation time of these patients in the study couldrepresent all the patients suffered severe muscle strain. And this will inevitablyundermine the credibility of the results of the study.

Finally, the conclusion is kind of hastilygeneralized. As is well known to us, antibiotics also have a enormous amount ofnegative effects while taking as part of the treatment. Whether it could beadvised to take for all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain is stilla question that should be thought over and researched.

To sum up, the argument is not wellreasoned as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer has to providesome more sound evidence that the treatments for these two groups are identicalin all aspects expect for the antibiotics. Additionally, give us someinformation about the number of the participants in the study and how serioustheir muscle strains are before the treatments. To make it acceptable, theauthor should explain the effect of the antibiotics both in positive andnegative aspects.

字数不多，标准时间内完成，请狠拍，谢谢

melody-quUID: 2970250

你的argu段落布局好标准啊，呵呵

choupgheadUID: 2969431

In the argument, the author advocates that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain had better take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To suggest his recommendation, the arguer cites the results of a study of two groups of patients that one（one指代的是group吧，group可以take antibiotics regularly么？我不确定） took antibiotics regularly through the treatment meanwhile the other one didn't. Comparing the average recuperation time of these two groups, the arguer make the final conclusion. However, the argument suffers from several critical flaws.

To begin with, the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep patients from recovering after severe muscle strain couldn't（尽量不适用缩写） be proved by the results of the study at all. Because of the vague relationship between the antibiotics and the secondary infections, a study of the function of antibiotics in the treatment for muscle injures couldn't explain anything about how secondary infections plays a negative role in the recovery after serious muscle strain. To make the argument acceptable, the author should indicate how the antibiotics influence the secondary infections at first.（恩，这个要点我忘了攻击了。）

Secondly, the arguer fails to rule out other possible causal factors that may lead to the average recuperation（时间reduce吧，recupation不能reduce） reducing in the first group. For instance, the doctor for the patients in the first group is one who specializes in sports medicine and(while) the doctor in the second group is just a general physician. Apparently, the study lacks the basic equity for the reason that a doctor who has more specialized professional knowledge and experience in treating for muscle injures may give the patients more helpful and constructive advises.(有些随意了，好的医生仅仅给一些建设性的意见么？再具体一些) Furthermore, he or she may instruct the patient to do some beneficial exercise that contributes to recuperating quickly.（这个例子本身没有问题，但是如果能更本质一些则更好，一个好的医生最主要对病人有什么不同, 我觉得是治疗手段或方式）（这一段末尾最好能拉回主题，“这都会影响病人的康复时间而对study的结果造成影响”，以保证逻辑的连续性）

What’s more, we have no idea of how many patients participate in the study and how the study is conducted（其实文中已经较详细的给出了实验是如何实施的，如果真的认为缺少怎样conduct的，也最好给出你认为缺少什么是关键的）. Thus, it is quite questionable that recuperation time of these patients in the study could represent all the patients suffered severe muscle strain. And this will inevitably undermine the credibility of the results of the study.（这里需要强调，study中的病人没有提及他们的muscle strain是severe的。这点非常影响逻辑，而且也可以攻击）

Finally, the conclusion is kind of hastily generalized. As is well known to us, antibiotics also have（has） a(n) enormous amount of negative effects (side effect副作用)while taking as part of the treatment. Whether it could be advised to take for all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain is still a question that should be thought over and researched.（这也比较空，具体点比较好，比如说调查过往病史，过敏情况等等）

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer has to provide some more sound evidence that the treatments for these two groups are identical in all aspects expect for the antibiotics. Additionally, give us（这个祈使句处理的有些随意） some information about the number of the participants in the study and how serious their muscle strains are before the treatments. To make it acceptable, the author should explain the effect of the antibiotics both in positive and negative aspects.