Argument51 我的第一篇argu，求拍

mjingaUID: 2133754

0606G同主题写作第十期——argument51

[题目]“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.”

[翻译]
医生长期以来怀疑严重肌肉扭伤后的二次感染妨碍了一些患者迅速康复。这一假说现在被一项对两组患者的研究的初步结果所证实。第一组患者全部由专攻运动医学的Dr. Newland治疗肌肉损伤，他们在疗程中经常服用抗生素。他们的康复期平均比通常预期的快40％。第二组患者由综合医师Dr. Alton治疗，他们被给予糖丸，而患者相信他们在服用抗生素。他们的平均康复时间没有明显缩短。因此，任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗。

The author recommends that all patients suffering muscle strain take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this recommendation the author cites the results of a study, in which two groups of patients would be observed. The study indicated that the recuperation of patients who took antibiotics was significantly quicker that that of patients who did not. This argument, however, is logically flawed in several critical respects.
To begin with, the argument does not contain clear evidence that the patients from both groups are comparable enough. In a study, it is important that both samples are analogues in several different respects, and the more the better. Until the author testifies that the patients of the two groups do have similarities, I remain suspension that people from the second group might be injured more severely than those from another group, or the average age of the second group is much higher. Perhaps people of the first group are all professional athletes, while the other persons are white-collars who rarely exercise and are thus vulnerable. As long as the author does not offer more facts to dispel these likelihoods, the results of the study are hardly credible.
Even if the original condition of the patients in the study is almost identical, there is strong possibility that the patients have accepted dissimilar treatments. Dr. Newland, who treated the first group, is a doctor specializing in sports medicine. Perhaps he gave his patients some effective medicines which promote the recovery, while taking antibiotics is nothing but subsidiary way. On the other hand, the patients of the second group got merely routine treatment. Moreover, the sugar pills that the persons of the second group took, might have a counteraction on the healing. If so, the fact would further undermine the validity of the suggestion.
Even assuming that all patients in this study received the same treatment and the outcome of the study is to some extend believable, the author does not justify the treatment of antibiotics on all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. The argument rests on the assumption that the patients in the study typify all patients with muscular injury. Without more information about the representativity of the patients in the study, it is hard to assess the merit of the author’s recommendation.
To sum up, the recommendation is not well substantiated. To convince me that antibiotics are beneficial in treating muscle strains the author need to provide more information about the patients be studied in the survey. The author should also show that participants of both groups are representative enough so that the result could spread to all patients with muscular injury.