argument 51 请好心人帮我看看什么水平 第一篇

songwenjun888UID: 2863543

The author of this argument presents such a conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this recommendation the arguer sites a preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients treated by different two doctors and different treatment methods. However, after carefully scrutinizing the information mentioned above, we would easily find that this recommendation relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

As a threshold problem, the author bases on the preliminary results of a study, however, there is no sign of such procedure for selecting sample, so we have valid reasons to doubt if the sample is representative enough to reflect the general subjects suffering from the severe muscle strain. If the patients' situations of Group-A are not the same as the Group-B's, there would have no meaning to take the study, let alone the so called advice for the treatment.

In the second place, even if there is no problem of the study sample, the arguer still cannot demonstrate the preliminary results mentioned above cogently. Because the arguer overlooks the background of the two doctors: the first one-specializing in sports medicine-makes his patients' recuperation time being 40% quicker than typically expected, while another doctor, a
general physician, whose patients' recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Maybe the skills of the doctors' result the differences not the pills. Besides, the recuperation environment can also have effect on the treatment progress, even sometimes it would determine the results if the environment is terrible.

In the third place, even the argument resetting on the assumption which is true of groups of people taken collectively is reasonable, whereas it cannot be useful for the individuals beyond that groups suffering from muscle strain. Yet this might not be the case for a variety of possible reasons, for instance the patients who are allergic to the antibiotics and the ones who suffer muscle strain very slightly. Thus, if the arguer provided more factors such as the ones mentioned above, and then concluded the same claim, maybe it would have made the conclusion more reliable, otherwise it seems so untenable to convince the readers.

To sum up, this argument is well-presented, but not completely well-reasoned. The arguer fails to substantiate his claim that the antibiotics could be useful for all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain, because the evidence cited to the argument does not lend strong supports to what the arguer maintains. If adding the structure of the study's sample, and the differences between the two groups including the factors of the doctor, the patients, and the treat environment, the argument would be more logical and reliable.