argument51[米国有米]第三次作业

森林116UID: 2272614

51 "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."

正文部分提纲(除首尾两段):
1.作者未说明两组人员伤势程度及病人自己体质情况是否相同
2 两组人员伤势种类和伤处也不一定相同(毕竟肌肉扭伤还素蛮宽的概念),药物对不同的伤当然有不同的药效
3 一直把抗生素服用也可能会产生副作用

In this argument the author concludes that all diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of the treatment. At the first glance this opinion seems to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection tells me that I cannot agree with it for the following reasons.
First it goes with out saying that the conditions of two groups’ injury are the same or not. Different conditions’ recuperations will of course be different that we couldn’t simply attributed to the antibiotic. And the author also failed to tell us how the two groups’ health constitutions is, perhaps most people who may be in the first group have a better constitution than the second group will certainly recover sooner as we all expect, it also have nothing to do with the antibiotics as the author claimed.
Secondly, there is another vague point that the wounded places and kinds of the each patient of muscle strain is still an unknown factor to us. Maybe the antibiotics are very effective to one kind or in a certain place and have a little result to another. Just like aspirin will cure your headache but have nothing to do with your toothache, though this example maybe a little extremely but the two’s error is the same.
What’s more, taking too much antibiotics as part of the treatment may lead to another illness. The ‘preliminary result’ failed to prove the long term influence which the antibiotics may bring to patients. Perhaps it could result in some terrible sequelaes after sometime? Temporary effects couldn’t pledge your long health just like opium can realise people’s ache of some organs for a moment, but bring you much more pains in the future take it as part of your whole treatment.
In sum, this argument is not convincing as it stands to make it logically acceptable. The author failed to offer more detailed information. Only with more convincing evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.