argu51 <彼岸小组第一次作业> by 7号

choupgheadUID: 2969431

Merely based on the untenable assumption and unwarranted evidence, the arguer drives to the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support his statement, he points out the result of a recent survey.
(这两句感觉重复了呢)Furthermore, a comparison between two groups of patients has been cites. At first glance, the reasoning seems to be appealing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some concerns that should be addressed in the argument. From the logical perspective, the argument suffers from three critical flaws.（有点过于模板化）
To begin with, inferring from the result of a recent survey, the author concludes that it is the secondary infections that keeps some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. However, the author fails to provides more information to indicate that the number of the patients investigated is statistically significant and that the patients involved in the survey are representatives in general. It is entirely possible that the quantity is too small to give any meaningful suggestion. Or perhaps the patients have a certain kind of habit that influences the recovery of their severe muscle strain. Thus, the reliability of the result is dubious. In sum, lacking more information concerning the size and randomness of the sample, it is unfair that the author firmly draws to a broader recommendation.（语言很凝练，没发现错误）
Furthermore, the author observes the phenomenon that the group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, and taking antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment, recuperates, on average, 40 percent quicker（more quickly） than typically expected. However, the author fails to establish a clausal (?什么意思) relationship between the regulation of antibiotics taken throughout treatment and the decrease of time of recuperation(recuperation time). It is highly possibilities that the determined reason for the decrease in recuperation is the doctor’s professional treatment. Maybe it is resulted from other internal and outer factors, namely the whether(weather), the patients’ diet, emotional conditions and so on. Hence the decline of time of recuperation is not necessarily due to the regulation of taking antibiotics throughout treatment. Without ruling out other feasible explanations for the dropdown of the recuperation time, it is reasonable to cast suspect on the recommendation the author puts forwards to.
In addition, the author cites a comparison on which he bases his presumption that secondary infections slows the recovery of treatment after severe muscle strain. However, the author commits a fallacy of incomplete comparison. To be specific, apart form the similarities the two groups of patients may share, there might exist quantities of differences , so many that undermines the credibility of this comparison. It is likely that the two groups of patients treated by distinct doctor would definitely have different responses. The different condition of different clinics, the different environment of recoveries and other possible factors might be responsible for the distinguish results. In short, without excluding other possible factors, the author ‘ endeavor to convince us is in vain.(这一段怎么感觉和上一段如此的想象，好像意思很重复，都是说抗生素不是唯一的控制变量，还可能有其他因素影响)
To sum up, the argument fails to validate its conclusion in respect that the evidence cited make little contribution to institute a comprehensive logical structure. To solidify the argument, the author would have to provide more information in regard with the sample of the survey. Besides, more direct evidence should have been given to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the regulation of taking antibiotics and the decrease of time of recuperation.（我觉得这里这里恰恰是一个好的攻击点，作者凭什么说抗生素就能抗二次感染，他什么都没说，我怎么知道抗生素是干什么用的，又为何把它当做实验控制变量） Therefore, if the factors discussed above had been taken into account, the argument would be more thorough and logically persuasive.

首先这个文章我也有些疑问，我就随便说说。作者在题目里总共陈述了两个观点，一个是二次感染可以阻碍严重的肌肉扭伤恢复；一个是我们应该建议所有的肌肉扭伤病人将抗生素加入治疗方案中。我首先疑问的就是作者的主观点是哪个，如果两个都是，那么我们两个都要攻击么？我觉得两个都攻击而且逻辑串联起来比较困难。那么如果只有一个是主观点的话就只有最后一句话了。但是第一个观点和最后一个观点联系起来时比较困难的，我很难从逻辑上达到流畅衔接。
我们来看，首先，抗生素的作用作者没有给明，其次实验中还存在各种缺陷，而且实验中没有提及肌肉损伤是否是严重的，都质疑了作者第一个观点——二次感染的观点。但是，我又想到，即使二次感染不会阻碍肌肉损伤恢复，但是服用了抗生素恢复时间确实少了，这也当然是可以建议病人服用的原因（虽然不是二次感染，但是确实有效），我说的有点乱，可以和我讨论，但是我就是找不到一个完美流畅的逻辑循环，求指正。