第一次发帖 希望大家多多指教 A51

fenghaomingUID: 2834640

Arument 51  没记时间 大概是60mins
In this argument, the arguer attempts to convince us that the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of theri treatment.
To justify this conclusion, the author cites the results of a study of two groups of patients with muscle strain. The recuperation time of antibiotic group is 40 percent quicker than the sugar pill group. As a careful examination below, the argument suffers from several critical flaws and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.
First and foremost, the recommendation depends on the assumption that all the patients suffer from muscle strain will get secondary infections. Yet no evidence is offered to substantiate this assumption. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that just a few patients may have that secondary infections and a large part of patients wouldn't get the secondary infection. If this is the case, then the conclusion that patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics would lack any merit whatsoever.
In the second place, the author's evidences are insufficient to support the conclusion. Obviously, author does not provide enough information on the subjects of the study. The patients can vary in their ages, genders and physical features. Perhaps the antibiotic group are younger and stronger than the sugar pill group, or the patients treated with sugar pill are happened to be weaker. In short, unless the author can show that the patiens of the two groups are in the same conditions, I cannot accept the recommendation.
In the third place, it is unreasonable to draw any conclusion based on the facts that the two groups of patients are treated by different doctors, one of whom are specializes in sports medicine and the other one is a general physician. It is just likely that the skills and experiences of the two doctors are different and can be a major factor of the patients’ recuperation time. Generally speaking, sports medicine doctor knows muscle strain problem better than general physician, to that extent, the patients treated by former doctor are more likely to recover quickly. Without considering and ruling out this possible reason for the high recovery rate, the argumer cannot confidently conclude that all the patients with muscle strain should take the antibiotics.
Last but not least, the use of sugar pill in this study is somewhat confuing. The author contains no evidence that sugar pill wouldn’t reduce the recovery rate in the second group. If the sugar pill can cause some weird reaction in muscle strain patients’ body which can lower the recuperation time, the arguer cannot claim that taking antibiotics is a good choice for the patients.
To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lead strong support to what the speaker holds. To strengthen the argumernt, the author would have to provide more evidence about the above-mentioned possibilities.