[a习作temp] 写的第一篇高频argument51 请各位拍砖 [复制链接]

xzm110
UID: 2775495

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 34
寄托币: 1233
注册时间: 2010-3-6
精华: 0
帖子: 77

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2011-1-7 19:45:28 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 xzm110 于 2011-1-7 19:48 编辑

这是我第一次写argument, 之前看了不少但是从来没动笔。希望大家拍砖。大家如果也有写这篇的我也很乐意互评，这样进步才快。谢谢大家@@！

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."
WORDS: 571
TIME: 00:38:01
DATE: 2011/1/6 16:15:43

In the medical newsletter the author suggests that patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment in order to avoid secondary infections.To support that point, the author provides an experiment studying two groups ofpatients who were respectively treated under different methods. This example seems to be plausible at the first glance. However, the logical flaws will loomso large when we scrutinize the details the author provides.

First of all, the author's conclusion that"giving antibiotic will help patients who have got severe muscle strain healquickly" depends on the reliability of the experiment. Yet the author provides no evidence, especially statistical data of the patients, to support that the experiment is valid. If very tiny number of people were involved inthe experiment, for example, each group has only ten or less people, the experiment will fail to reflect the overall situation of the reality. Even ifthere is adequate number of people joining this experiment, the author providesnothing about their personal information, say, their age, sex, state ofillness, and so forth. It is very likely that because the second group involvesolder people or people whose illnesses are more severe, their recuperation isnot significantly reduced as the first group. Without ruling out suchpossibilities, the author cannot convince me only by an experiment withoutsupportive details.

Secondly, even if we believe the experimentitself has included information above, the author could not draw a hastyconclusion about the effectiveness of the antibiotic. As is obviously shown,two groups of people are being treated under different doctors. It is verylikely that the two doctors carry out different types of treatment due to theirspecializations or their certain knowledge. If this is the case, then therecuperation rate may have nothing to do with the antibiotic but likely resultsfrom other treatment that the doctors use.

Thirdly, even if we assume that the twodoctors implement the same treatment, there author unfairly assume that all thepatients who suffer from muscle injuries would surely develop secondaryinfections. As the author tells us, it is the secondary infections that leadthe patients to a more long and struggling healing process, not other factors. Toput it in another way, that people who have not got such infections need notantibiotic at all. However, the author provide no evidence that the two groupsof patients are in infective condition. Actually the author does not even pointout any clues about what secondary infection is. This is a serious logic flawthat cannot make the author’s claim persuasive.

Last of all, common sense tells usantibiotic can be fatal to people who are allergic to it. So it is not appropriateand possible to apply it to all the patients, as the author suggests.

In sum, the author’s suggestion is notcredible as it stands. It relies on solely on a shaky support—an experimentthat lacks of scientificalness. To help the author better support that his orher suggestion, I need to know more about things below:1. The statistical dataof the two group of people and the methods the doctors carry out. 2. The definitionof secondary infection and if patients involved in the two groups are sufferfrom that. Only by sort out such things can help the author to make his or herclaim be more persuasive.