[wwwjdan]A51求高手指点(667)

wwwjdanUID: 2932773

我3月29考，这是我第一篇，没有限时，用了很长时间写到自己觉得差不多为止，篇幅可能太长了。
请大家不吝赐教哦！！！有拍必回哦~
--------------------------------------------------------------
51The following appeared in a medicalnewsletter.

"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."
--------------------------------------------------------------
分析：
第一组比第二组康复快是因为吃了抗生素-->二次感染阻碍肌肉拉伤的康复-->肌肉拉伤患者都要吃抗生素



提纲：
1. 影响康复速度的多种因素未被提及（错误因果）
2. 即使抗生素的服用加快了康复，不能说明抗生素消除了二次感染，从而加快康复（非充要条件）
3. 抗生素的服用有一定的负面作用（one-sided）

--------------------------------------------------------------

Assuming the experiment produces a valid and meaningful comparison result, and therefore attributing the mainresponsibility of delaying the recuperation of muscle strain to secondary infection, the arguer recommends prescribing antibiotics during all treatments of muscle strain, which however is too reckless to be persuasive and still requires more rigorous reasoning and evidence to support.


Firstly, assuming that the reduce of therecovery time is entirely owing to taking antibiotics as a part of treatment,the arguer overlooks myriad possibilities which will influence the patients'recovery time. /As the argument states, the two groups of patients are treatedby different doctors with proficiency in respective aspect, and thus Dr.Newland's rich experiences in sports medicine, such as more effective prescription and methods of after care, may considerably contribute to the patients' quick recovery from muscle strain, which may even overwhelm the unknown benefit brought out by antibiotics. /What's more, the arguer doesn't supply any clues that the patients are with healthy condition of almost thesame standard. If the majority of the patients of the first group are of younger age, possess stronger ability to heal and have better immunity to persist themselves from secondary infection, while the other patients of the second group are totally on the contrary, it is undoubted that the first group will be restored to health more quickly even without the help of antibiotics. /Amore appropriate comparing object should be, in this experiment, two groups of patients, who are of basically same healthy situation, treated with uniform methods, and take the identical medicine except antibiotics, but do not take any other drugs as substitute.


However, even if the experiment is improvedas suggested above with a unified comparing basic and thus achieves a more believable result that antibiotics definitely shortens the recovery time, it is still logically flawed to equate the result with the hypothesis that secondary infection blocks the quick heal, since there is no evidence to prove the existence of secondary infection after muscle strain, and neither, the arguer doesn't point out whether antibiotics and eliminating secondary infection are necessary and sufficient conditions to each other. The hypothesis will be ridiculous if actually none of the patients in the experiment are caught by secondary infection. Additionally, granted secondary infection occurs, the chance couldn’tbe ignored that perhaps antibiotics merely exert its effect on other diseaseshappening after muscle strain, which delay the recovery, but not secondary infection.


Finally, even though it is fully proved that secondary infection does obstruct the recovery from muscle strain, it is unnecessary and sometimes improper to avoid the infection by antibiotics. It is a commonsense that before any prescription including antibiotics, patients should be examined cautiously to check whether it is suitable and necessary for them totake the medicine. In particular, those who are allergic to antibiotics should not take it at all because a minimal dose of antibiotics would cause serious reactions of the whole body, which may even be fatal. What's more, antibiotics may accompany with a series of side effects such as hypertension, drowsy and soon, since it help people get rid of infectious diseases by killing all bacteriain body without distinguishing the noxious and beneficial ones, which to someextent, will certainly do harm to people’s health. Furthermore, always taking antibiotics may result in the resistence of the disease to the medicine and then it will be useless to take antibiotics to treat such diseases next time.For so many disadvantages to use antibiotics, despite of its effectiveness inthe treatment of infectious diseases, still it’ll be better to choose analternative method if possible.


In conclusion, the argument is unconvincingas it stands. To make it more reasonable, the author should provides more detailed information of the two groups of patients and give convincing evidence that secondary infection definitely happens and then be eliminated by antibiotics instead of some other elements. Also, he should make the usage of antibiotics more serious.