argument51 (米国有米）bailamo27第三次作业３

bailamo27UID: 2191717

Arg51. 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."
(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。)

Syllabus:
1.前提不成立：肌肉拉伤者不一定都会或都容易得二次感染。
2.论据无说服力:
(1)两组病人资料不详. 年龄, 身体素质,营养状况,肌肉受伤程度等.
(2)两位医生的经验和水平不同. 运动方面的医生对肌肉损伤的康复治疗方法比一般普通医生要了解,更有针对性.
(3)治疗时,在用抗生素时有否并用其他药物?疗效好一定是抗生素的作用?是否每个人都适宜同样的抗生素.
(4)另一组用糖片,并没指出这种糖片不会影响恢复的速度.
3.论断太武断.认为服用抗生素一定能加快康复,但没有考虑其副作用, 如过敏等. 为加强说服力, 进一步提供二次感染的发生机率. 设置一个科学的研究方案, 相同医生, 相同病症, 病人相似的生理条件,环境等条件下, 抗生素能使患者早日康复.

In this Medical newsletter, the arguer states that all patients who are suffered from muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment, because the hypothesis that secondary infections may prevent patients from healing. The arguer also states that an experiment on two groups of patients with muscle strain, which are treated by different doctors got preliminary results, showing that the group treated with antibiotics recoveres more quickly. But to think twice, this experiment is unconvincing enough to lend support to the hypothesis.

To bebin with, the premise of this argument is not established. Patients suffered muscle strain will not get secendary infections all. There's no absolute link between muscle strain and secendary infections. Because any patient may get secendary infections without intensive care or lack of nutrition, even normal person who get overdue tired or under great psychological stress may lead to decresase of immunity system. So it's not logical for doctors to give every patient afflicted with muscle stress with antibiotics.

Additionally, there're lots of flaws in this experiment mentioned in the argument. First of all, there's no any information about patients in two study groups, such as, age, physical quality, nutrition, the severity of muscle strain and so on. Second, the two groups of patient were treated by two different doctors. One is Dr. Newland, a specialist of sports medicine, meanwhile Dr. Alton, is a general physician. They must possess different experiences and have divergence in treatment. Obviously, physican in sports medicine must know muscle strain better than a general doctor. Thirdly, in the study of treatment, the arguer don't mention whether the doctor use other kind of medicine with antibiotics in first group. Maybe there's an interaction between other pills and antibiotics, which make patients recover more quickly.  The last but can't be ignored, the second group was given suger pills instead of antibiotics, however, there's no information indicate that this kind of sugar pills won't influence patients' recuperation.

To summarize, this argument is too arbitrary. To make sure that antibiotics can accelerate recovery, the arguer have to provide more persuasive evidences, such as, how many people will get secondary infections after being dignosed with muscle strain. Furthermore,  a rigorous study about the relationship of antibiotics and recovery of patients should be carried out. The study must be strictly controlled, say, patients in experiment must be suffered the same disease, have similar physical condition and be treated by the same doctor in the same environment, etc. And the effection of sugar pills should be taken into account.

cckantUID: 2247822

In this Medical newsletter, the arguer states that all patients who are suffered from muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment, because the hypothesis 觉得这里用assertion or claim会好些，基于假设作出判断似乎有点不太恰当 that secondary infections may prevent patients from healing. The arguer also states that an experiment on two groups of patients with muscle strain, which are treated by different doctors and provided preliminary results, showing that the group treated with antibiotics recoved more quickly. But to think twice, this experiment is unconvincing enough to lend support to the hypothesis. “is unconvincing enough” 有语病，或许改为 is unconvincing to support the hypothesis, 或者 is not convincing enough

To begin with, the premise of this argument is not established.简洁明了 Patients suffered muscle strain will not get secondary infections all. There's no absolute 用necessary会好些 link between muscle strain and secondary infections. Because any patient may get secondary infections without intensive care or lack of nutrition, even normal person who get overdue tired or under great psychological stress may lead to decrease of immunity (system) 删掉. So it's not logical for doctors to give every patient afflicted with muscle stress (with删掉) antibiotics.

Additionally, there're lots of flaws in this experiment mentioned in the argument. First of all, there's no any information about patients in two study groups, such as, age, physical quality, nutrition, the severity of muscle strain and so on. Second, the two groups of patient were treated by two different doctors. One is Dr. Newland, a specialist of sports medicine, meanwhile the other, Dr. Alton, is a general physician. They must possess different experiences and have divergence (good word) in treatment. Obviously, physician in sports medicine must know muscle strain better than a general doctor. Thirdly, in the study of treatment, the arguer don't mention whether the doctor use other kind of medicine with antibiotics in the first group. Maybe there's an interaction between other pills and antibiotics, which make patients recover more quickly.  The last but can't be ignored, the second group was given suger pills instead of antibiotics, however, there's no information indicates that this kind of sugar pills won't influence patients' recuperation.

To summarize, this argument is too arbitrary. To make sure that antibiotics can accelerate recovery, the arguer has to provide more persuasive evidences, such as, how many people will get secondary infections after being diagnosed with muscle strain. Furthermore,  a rigorous study about the relationship of antibiotics and recovery of patients should be carried out. The study must be strictly controlled, say, patients in experiment must be suffered the same disease, have similar physical condition and be treated by the same doctor in the same environment, etc. And the effect of sugar pills should be taken into account.

Comment:
1.        内容充实，多方面反驳了命题
2.        应多尽量避免拼写错误
3.        关于第二段，其实我写的时候也不是很明白为什么肌肉扭伤或者肌肉疲劳会导致感染，我想大概是外伤同时存在的原因。但是，在这里我比较倾向于理解为如果感染存在的话如何，或者说，假定muscle strain的一部分病人会得Secondary infection，然后展开讨论。另外，刚查到secondary infection是继发性感染，我原来的理解是次要的、轻微小规模的感染，有所偏差。所以说正常人营养不够也会得secondary infection那句似乎有问题。
4． 不好意思，来不及马上改阿狗。

[ 本帖最后由 cckant 于 2006-12-4 20:29 编辑 ]