ARGUMENT 51...木有模板现掰啊...随便拍

waitingwhtUID: 2867548

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 455          TIME: 00:44:36          DATE: 2/2/2011 10:13:19 AM

This text telling us that a study by two group of patient with different treatments, including the taking antibiotics by Dr. Newland and only taking sugar pills by Dr. Alton, which the writer thought showing that it is the secondary infection keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. It seems like logical, but when we think it again with some questions, it would be a totally ridiculous inference.

Firstly, the precondition of the statement is that the secondary infections may happen. There is no proof which shows that the secondary infections would come to the patients who have severe muscle strain. If there’s no secondary infection, the statement the text shows could not set up.

Even though it is the secondary infections that cause the deduce of the speed of the recuperation, we cannot affirm that the study of two group of patients could be an evidence that lead to the result that what keeps patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain is the secondary infection. For the patients' details have never been given so that we could not know that whether the first group of patients, whose recuperation time was shorter, have no other factors which make them heal from the muscle strain, or their physical qualities are better than the second group. Moreover, their doctors are not the same and different doctors may have different skill of treatment. Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine so that he may have more experiences on the muscle strain treatment, while the Dr. Alton could only give the patients general treatment. That would also make the difference between the two groups of patients. Thus, the saying that the secondary infection may keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain with no proof is unauthentic.

Even if that it is the secondary infection takes patients much time from healing after severe muscle strain, it could not be the reason that any patient who diagnosed with muscle stain would be advised to take antibiotics. We cannot make it sure that the secondary infection will happened anytime during the healing time of the muscle strain treatment, we also don't know that the antibiotics would not have other side effect which may cause a worse result, and we even have no idea that the antibiotics has relationships with the secondary infections. The only conclusion that takes antibiotics is irrational.

To sum up, the doctor whose patients were suffer from severe muscle strain could have much more study about the relationship between secondary infections and the recuperation time, and make sure that there was positive effect to take antibiotics as part of their patients' treatment. Then try their best to give the patients a good treatment.






==LOGIC LINE==
1st group (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.
while
2nd 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

--> COMPARED preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients
--> secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain.


==LOGIC ERROR==
1、PROCONDITION: secondary infections会发生。
--> 没有任何证据说明 severe muscle strain会发生secondary infections
论断的前提不一定成立。前提是二次感染一定会发生。但是论者没有提供任何资料证明二次感染会发生在肌肉拉伤的病人身上，或是这种病人容易发生二次感染。

?2、antibiotics可以healing quickly after severe muscle strain。
while
      2nd group's average recuperation time was not significantly reduced说明不服用antibiotics对patient's healing没有影响。
-->说明antibiotics有促进作用。
while
     antibiotics 不等于secondary infections
-->不一定是secondary infections keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain

3、两个group的patients的情况不一定相同。
论断引用的论据没有说服力。论断引用了一项分组研究。但是首先论者没有提供任何有关两组病人的资料。有关他们的年龄、性别以及其他生理特征。有可能服用抗生素的一组病人比较年轻，或是本身生理机能好，而不服用的一组病人可能都是体质弱的人。这样就不能说明是抗生素而不是其他原因使得病人康复快。另外两位医生的经验和水平也会影响病人康复的速度，一般来说运动医生会比普通医生更了解肌肉的问题，所以由他治疗的病人康复快，就不能排除是因为他的水平高或是治疗有针对性造成，这样也不能说明是抗生素使得病人康复快。

4、不服抗生素的一组食用了糖片，而论者没有给出资料证明这种糖片不会影响病人的康复。所以对这两组病人的研究并不能说明抗生素能使病人康复快。

5、论断太武断。论者由二次感染会防碍病人快速康复而认为要建议病人服用抗生素。但是抗生素除了会杀菌防止感染外，还可能会带来其他问题，比如副作用，也可能有的病人会对抗生素过敏。对于这些情况论者没有考虑进来。

SUM UP: 为加强说服力，论者还应该进一步提供有关肌肉拉伤的病人中二次感染的概率有多少，并提供一份科学的研究，证明在相同医生、相同病征、相同病人生理条件以及其他治疗手段、环境相同的情况下，抗生素是能使病人早日康复。