argument 51 最后的战役 波 第一周

liubo8813UID: 2770954

ARGUMENT51 - 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."


The author suggests that all the patients diagnosed with muscle strain should be treated with antibiotics according to a hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients of severe muscle strain from healing quickly. And the hypothesis has been proven by a study in which two groups of patients with muscle injuries are treated respectively by Dr. Newland and Dr. Alton.

First, the author relies on an assumption that the recuperation time (RT) of the first group of patients assumed to be shorter than expected means that the RT of first group is definitely a short RT. Unless the statistics of their RT are provided, there remains the possibility that the RT of the second group is shorter than the first, which otherwise undermines the hypothesis. And more, Dr. Newland's expectation is no more than a subjective assumption, which may serve as a misleading factor.

Second, even if the patients of first group suffered a shorter RT, the argument rests on additional assumption that the shorter RT of first group is due to the usage of antibiotics. Only when the other elements in the study, such as the abilities of the two doctors and the severity of the patients' strain, are exactly same between the groups, can the result be reasonable. So the hypothesis is not reliable without ruling out the possibilities that other elements in the study are different.

Finally, even assuming that the usage of antibiotics is the crucial reason of the shorter RT, one still cannot be convinced because the hypothesis which refers to the severe muscle strain may not be appropriate for all the muscle strain cases. According to one's common sense, muscle strain with different severity should be treated with different therapy. So it may be radical to avoid antibiotics in the treatment of some kinds of muscle strain other than to advise.

In sum, the suggestion is unpersuasive through close scrutiny. To bolster it, the author should provide concrete data to convince that the RT of the first group is statistically shorter than the second group. And to convince that the shorter RT is due to the usage of antibiotics, other possibilities should be ruled out. At last, I would need studies about other kinds of muscle strain to assess the suggestion.

求狠拍！！

adam05UID: 2670502

ARGUMENT51 - 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."


The author suggests that all the patients diagnosed with muscle strain should be treated with antibiotics according to a hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients of severe muscle strain from healing quickly. And the hypothesis has been proven by a study in which two groups of patients with muscle injuries are treated respectively by Dr. Newland and Dr. Alton.

Firstly, the author relies on an assumption that the recuperation time (RT) of the first group of patients assumed to be shorter than expected means that the RT of first group is definitely a short RT. Unless the statistics of their RT are provided, there remains the possibility that the RT of the second group is shorter than the first, which otherwise undermines the hypothesis. And more, Dr. Newland's expectation is no more than a subjective assumption, which may serve as a misleading factor.

Secondly, even if the patients of first group suffered a shorter RT, the argument rests on additional assumption that the shorter RT of first group is due to the usage of antibiotics. Only when the other elements in the study, such as the abilities of the two doctors and the severity of the patients' strain, are exactly same between the groups, can the result be reasonable. So the hypothesis is not reliable without ruling out the possibilities that other elements in the study are different.

Finally, even assuming that the usage of antibiotics is the crucial reason of the shorter RT, one still cannot be convinced because the hypothesis which refers to the severe muscle strain may not be appropriate for all the muscle strain cases. According to one's common sense, muscle strain with different severity should be treated with different therapy. So it may be radical to avoid antibiotics in the treatment of some kinds of muscle strain other than to advice.

In sum, the suggestion is unpersuasive through close scrutiny. To bolster it, the author should provide concrete data to convince that the RT of the first group is statistically shorter than the second group. And to convince that the shorter RT is due to the usage of antibiotics, other possibilities should be ruled out. At last, I would need studies about other kinds of muscle strain to assess the suggestion.
首先，我觉得A应该在开篇就指出观点是错误的。而不仅仅是陈述题的观点。
其次，我看了4遍真没看懂LZ第二段具体是想说明什么。
接下来，第三段的suffer我感觉不恰当，suffer应该和受苦搭配。。和RT搭配就感觉。。
最后，开头用Firstly,secondly是副词。。