argument51 求拍

lih008UID: 2269470

Argument51
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."

In this argument, the arguer recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment as the hypothesis, that doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle stain, has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. To support this argument, the arguer cites a survey about two groups of patients who are suffered from muscle injuries. Careful and logical thinking could reveal many logical flaws of this argument, rendering it unconvincing.

In the first place, the arguer fails to tell us some detailed information about the two groups of patients, which undermine the survey's results that patients who take antibiotics would take 40 percent less time to recovery than typically expected. In this argument, there is no information about the two groups of patients, such the age, the condition of physic, the nutrition condition, and so on, which could greatly influence the recovery time of muscle injury. Without such information, it is entirely possible that the patients of group one have average more predominant conditions to recovery from muscle injuries sooner than group two. If this is the case, this survey could lend little credible support to substantiate this argument.

In the second place, the arguer fails to take into account the difference of the two doctors involved in the survey, which could also undermine the results of this survey. Just as the arguer says in the argument that Dr. Newland is a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, while Dr. Alton is a general physician. Perhaps just because Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine and is good at treating muscle injuries while Dr. Alton is not good at muscle injuries, it seems that the patients of group one who take antibiotics tend to take less time to recovery than group two. If this is the case, maybe the antibiotics take no effect in the treat of patients of group one. To better support this argument, the arguer should let the two doctors just be one person and the method of cure must be the same. Under this condition, the survey could be more cogent.

Finally, even though the patients and doctors are all the same in the survey, the arguer can not convince us that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. As many doctors have long suspended that patients who are severely muscle injured could take less time to recovery by taking antibiotics, which is not proved in the argument. However, maybe there is no need to take antibiotics for the patients who are just lightly injured. In this case, the arguer's recommendation that all patients who are suffered from muscle injuries should take antibiotics as part of their treatment is unreasonable.

In sum, the arguer fails to convince us that all patients diagnosed with muscles strain should take antibiotics to shorten the recovery time. To bolster this argument, the arguer should provide more evidence to substantiate that the analogy between the two groups of patients and doctors are reasonable. To better estimate this argument, we need more evidence that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain but not only patients who are severely muscle injured should take antibiotics.

Words:555

weixchUID: 2104033

In this argument, the arguer recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment as the hypothesis, that doctors have long suspected that (the) secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle stain, has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients.(句子太长了，多用点连词和连接短语，分开句子，层层来说可能更好) To support this argument, the arguer cites a survey about two groups of patients who are suffered from muscle injuries（这一句重复多余了，上一句已经说了那个study了）. Careful and logical thinking could reveal many logical flaws of this argument, rendering it unconvincing.

In the first place, the arguer fails to tell us some detailed information about the two groups of patients, which undermine the survey's results that patients who take antibiotics would take 40 percent less time to recovery than typically expected. In this argument, there is no information about the two groups of patients, such the age, the condition of physic, the nutrition condition, and so on, which could greatly influence the recovery time of muscle injury. Without such information, it is entirely possible that the patients of group one have average more predominant conditions to recovery from muscle injuries sooner than group two. If this is the case, this survey could lend little credible support to substantiate this argument.

In the second place, the arguer fails to take into account the difference of the two doctors involved in the survey, which could also undermine the results of this survey. Just as the arguer says in the argument that Dr. Newland is a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, while Dr. Alton is a general physician. Perhaps just because Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine and is good at treating muscle injuries while Dr. Alton is not good at muscle injuries, it seems that（去掉it seems that） the patients of group one who take antibiotics tend to take less time to recovery than group two. If this is the case, maybe the antibiotics take no effect in the treat of patients of group one. To better support this argument, the arguer should let the two doctors just be one person and the method of cure must be the same（这一句不大好，试试the arguer should assure the 2 groups treated by the same doctor with also the same method of cure）. Under this condition, the survey could be more cogent.

Finally, even though the patients and doctors are all the same in the survey, the arguer can not convince us that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. As many doctors have long suspended that patients who are severely muscle injured could take less time to recovery by taking antibiotics, which is not proved in the argument. However, maybe there is no need to take antibiotics for the patients who are just lightly injured. In this case, the arguer's recommendation that all patients who are suffered from muscle injuries should take antibiotics as part of their treatment is unreasonable.

In sum, the arguer fails to convince us that all patients diagnosed with muscles strain should take antibiotics to shorten the recovery time. To bolster（是不是要加个up,好像很多例句加up的） this argument, the arguer should provide more evidence to substantiate that the analogy between the two groups of patients and doctors are reasonable. To better estimate this argument, we need more evidence that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain but not only patients who are severely muscle injured should take antibiotics.

另外，作为argument，555words有点长