最后的战役 第一周 argument 51 by adam

adam05UID: 2670502

51The 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."
My argument:
A-51
In the medical newsletter, the aouthor recomands that patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well achised to take antibiotics as part of their treament.To substain this hypothesis,the author provides the evidence that a group who tool antibiotic regularly throughout their treament had a shorter recuperation time.Comparing with the first group,the second team who were given sugar pills,although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics, had a longer recuperation time.A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groudless the conclusion is.
First of all,the data collected from the experiment is not reliable.The argument does not show us detailed information about that how many patients did they studied overall and how long before they got a conclusion.If they just study several patients during a short time.The conclusion got from the experiment is clearly unreasonable.Even though they study lots of people for a long time in the experiment,the conclusion that is based on the data on average is not comfirmed yet.That 40 percent quicker than typically expected on average could include the situation that some patients in the first group recuperated much quicker than the typically,but the others didn't even slower.
If so,the hypothesis that taking antibiotic can help everyone who is diagnosed with muscle strain is useful obseriously groudless.
Secondly,the experiment subjects were not classified.People in the two gruops should be same including age,sex and vocation.If people in the first group were all youth or athletes who practiceed all the time and people in the other group were old or white-collars who worked in the office all day long.Even without antibiotics the first group would have a shorter recuperation.Although the experiment subjects were classified,the argument failed to consider how serious patients' ill were.If patients' ill in the second group were more serious,it is obviously their recuperation should be longer than the first group.
Last but not the least,two groups had different doctors, one was a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, and the other was only a general doctor. No evidence shows that they would give the same medicine other than antibiotics or sugar pills when they met the same patient of the same symptom. Different doctors have different knowledge and different experience, and people always place more reliance on the expert than the general doctor. So it is probably that a patient would conform to the expert’s advise seriously but not to the general doctor’s.
In a word,in face of such limited evidence,it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all.To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the comparability of the different doctors and their different patients.

hfyyelaineUID: 2976419

In the medical newsletter, the aouthor(auther) recomands(recommends) that patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well achised(不太明白这里想用的是哪个单词？) to take antibiotics as part of their treatmens. To substain(sustain) this hypothesis, the author provides the evidence that a group who tool antibiotic regularly throughout their treatment(treatment) had a shorter recuperation time. Comparing with the first group, the second team who were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics, had a longer recuperation time. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless(groundless) the conclusion is.

First of all, the data collected from the experiment is not reliable. The argument does not show us detailed information about that how many patients did they studied overall and how long before they got a conclusion. If they just study several patients during a short time. The conclusion got from the experiment is clearly unreasonable.(并作一句)Even though they study lots of people for a long time in the experiment, the conclusion that is based on the data on average is not comfirmed（confirmed） yet. That 40 percent quicker than typically expected on average could include the situation that some patients in the first group recuperated much quicker than the typically, but the others didn't,even slower.

If so, the hypothesis that taking antibiotic can help everyone who is diagnosed with muscle strain is useful obseriously groundless.

Secondly, the experiment subjects were not classified. People in the two gruops should be same including(at the aspects of) age, sex and vocation. If people in the first group were all youth or athletes who practiceed all the time and people in the other group were old or white-collars who worked in the office all day long. Even without antibiotics the first group would have a shorter recuperation. Although the experiment subjects were classified, the argument failed to consider how serious patients' ill were. If patients' ill in the second group were more serious, it is obviously their recuperation should be longer than the first group.(层层递进，很有力)
Last but not the least, two groups had different doctors, one was a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, and the other was only a general doctor. No evidence shows that they would give the same medicine other than antibiotics or sugar pills when they met the same patient of the same symptom. Different doctors have different knowledge and different experience, and people always place more reliance on the expert than the general doctor. So it is probably that a patient would conform to the expert’s advise seriously but not to the general doctor’s.

In a word, in face of such limited evidence, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the comparability of the different doctors and their different patients.

huimieUID: 2578470

文句方面，hfyyelaine已經非常到位了，我提下邏輯方面吧：
lz的邏輯是1病人不具有代表性，2兩組的病人是不同的，3醫生也可能影響。
如果倒個個兒或許更好：1，醫生的影響；2，即使醫生差不多，病人的條件也有差異；3哪怕一切都在控制中，他們具有代表性嗎？
還需要antibiotics有效地證據。
而且study只針對severe的人，有必要對所有病人都使用嗎？這也可以論述下。