argument51 jingjing(kito)

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 51 - 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."

提纲：
1 两组病人的情况可能不一样（health condition, level of injuries, previous records of such illness and so forth）
2 模糊数据：病人康复的时间无法比较，应该给出具体时间
3 其它可能影响病人康复的因素，如医生的水平，是否用了别的药，康复期间是否有适当的锻炼等等。
4 fallacy of generalization 没有考虑是否所有病人都适用antibiotics，可能它有未知的有害副作用，可能有些病人对它过敏。

This argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making a comparison of one group of patients who were treated by Dr. Newland, and another group who were treated by Dr. Alton, the author's conclusion for all patients who are suffering from muscle strain had better take antibiotics seems logical.

However, the author's conclusion is not convincing after close scrutiny of the study which is quoted by the author to support the recommendation. First of all, the author has not provide any information about the two groups of patients. What about their health conditions, the extent of muscle injuries, their previous records of similar illness? Without such essential backgrounds, we cannot be persuaded the results of the study are statistically reliable.

As the author claims, antibiotics is the key for the recuperation of patients who suffer from muscle strain, however, this might be the case. In the first group, the fact that the patients' restoration time was 40% quicker than typically expected does not mean that they can heal more quickly than the second group. This statistics cited by the author is too vague to be informative. Perhaps the time that they take is longer than those who were not treated by antibiotics. If this is true, then it indeed serve to undermine the author's recommendation that the recuperation of the first group of patients are attributable to the function of antibiotics.

Even if the patients who are given antibiotics took a comparatively short time for restoring, the author's conclusion is still unwarranted. The author overlooks other possible factors that might contribute to their restoring process. For example, Dr. Newland who are more professional in curing the sports illness implement a more effective measure for the treatment of his patients than that of Dr. Alton. For that matter, perhaps there are additional drug been given by Dr. Newland for the first group of patients which play a more vital role in their recuperation while nothing did by Dr. Alton. Or perhaps the first group patients did some comfort muscle exercise which is helpful for their restoration. Without considering and ruling out these and other possibilities, the author cannot persuade me that patients who suffered from muscle strain should take antibiotics as a part of their treatments.

Finally, the author simply generalized that all the patients who are diagnose with muscle strain should take antibiotics. However, he neglects the possible scenarios that antibiotics may have some unknown detriment side-effects to the patients. Additionally, some patient might be hypersensitive with antibiotics. Thus, the author's conclusion is completely unconvincing.

In sum, the results of the report which the author used to bolster the hypothesis is totally unreliable because the comparison between the two groups in the report is based on the highly distinct samples including the patients, doctors, the treatment measures.

bunnymz2005UID: 2146758

This argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making a comparison of one group of patients who were treated by Dr. Newland, and another group who were treated by Dr. Alton, the author's conclusion for all patients who are suffering from muscle strain had better take antibiotics seems logical. （开头总结得很好！）

However, the author's conclusion is not convincing after close scrutiny of the study which is quoted by the author to support the recommendation. (个人认为这句话应该归到上一段去，我们外教曾经说过外国人的思维是线性思维，如果在该出现thesis的地方，比如第一段，没有出现thesis，他们就会很confused)First of all, the author has not provide any information about the two groups of patients. What about their health conditions, the extent of muscle injuries, their previous records of similar illness?（想得很仔细，学习中……） Without such essential backgrounds, we cannot be persuaded the results of the study are statistically reliable.

As the author claims, antibiotics is the key for the recuperation of patients who suffer from muscle strain, however, this might be the case. In the first group, the fact that the patients' restoration time was 40% quicker than typically expected does not mean that they can heal more quickly than the second group. This statistics cited by the author is too vague to be informative. Perhaps the time that they take is longer than those who were not treated by antibiotics.（这儿没懂，请教！） If this is true, then it indeed serve to undermine the author's recommendation that the recuperation of the first group of patients are attributable to the function of antibiotics.

Even if the patients who are given antibiotics took a comparatively short time for restoring, the author's conclusion is still unwarranted. The author overlooks other possible factors that might contribute to their restoring process. For example, Dr. Newland who are more professional in curing the sports illness implement a more effective measure for the treatment of his patients than that of Dr. Alton. For that matter, perhaps there are additional drug been given by Dr. Newland for the first group of patients which play a more vital role in their recuperation while nothing did by Dr. Alton. Or perhaps the first group patients did some comfort muscle exercise which is helpful for their restoration. Without considering and ruling out these and other possibilities, the author cannot persuade me that patients who suffered from muscle strain should take antibiotics as a part of their treatments.（这段的细节描述非常好！）

Finally, the author simply generalized that all the patients who are diagnose with muscle strain should take antibiotics. However, he neglects the possible scenarios that antibiotics may have some unknown detriment side-effects to the patients（再深入一些就更好了，怎么detriment了？）. Additionally, some patient might be hypersensitive with antibiotics. Thus, the author's conclusion is completely unconvincing.

In sum, the results of the report which the author used to bolster the hypothesis is totally unreliable because the comparison between the two groups in the report is based on the highly distinct samples including the patients, doctors, the treatment measures.

写的很不错，除了body2有一些confusing之外。基本错误都找到，细节也都想到了。句式用词多变。向你学习ing~~~

[ 本帖最后由 bunnymz2005 于 2006-1-22 12:11 编辑 ]

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

part 2我想说的是可能第一组病人康复的时间比第二组长（那句话）

你让我想到它的一个错误我们没有去批的，就是这两组实验只能说在一定程度上证明了抗生素对muscle strain 的病人的康复有帮助（其实就这点还有很大争论），并不能说它在防止二次感染上有作用，因为作者并没有给出证据表明第一组病人后来suffer muscle strain的rate比第二组小，而且可能他们在这个experiment中已经是二次甚至三次感染也说不定，然而作者并没有说明，所以这个假设本身值得怀疑。当然，我觉得有个细节可能还可以批，就是假设是说muscle strain，而这两组病人一定是muscle strain 吗？muscle injuries 可能包括其它的吧，比如被玻璃擦伤等。谢谢你的讨论给我的启发！