argument51 请多提建议！十二月高强组第二周周五作业

waidswUID: 2256074

题目：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."
字数：463          用时：0:30:00          日期：2006-11-29

1 假设是严重的要用抗生素，作者错误推广到所有病人
2 研究有问题 对照两组的情况没有说明白，样本的代表性
3 抗生素的危害及其他有效手段

The arguer claims that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics. To support this claim, the arguer points out a hypothesis that secondary infection could hinder the healing of the severe muscle strain. To prove the hypothesis, the arguer alsocites preliminary results of a study that illustrate the effectiveness of the antibiotics in treating muscle injuries. The argument seems appealing at first glance, careful scrutiny, however, reveals several flaws of the claim.

To begin with, even assuming the hypothesis is proved by the study, the arguer arbitrarily expands the hypothesis to all the patients who suffered muscle strain. The hypothesis points out that secondary infection may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, whereas the arguer suggests all muscle strained patients, It is hardly to concede that all the patients suffered muscle strain are severe, and there are no evidences to prove that the situation of normal muscle strains are the same as the serious ones. Hence the suggestion of the arguer is basically unconvincing.

Secondly, the results of the study are specious in several aspects. On the one hand, the arguer fails to prove that the conditions of the two groups of patients are similar, such conditions include the treatments, the severity of the strain, the healthy conditions about the patients and ages and gender. Absent any of the information mentioned above, the results of the survey are dubious. On the other hand, the arguer fails to illustrate whether the patients are representative of the whole population. Merely based on the two groups of patient could hardly lend any credible support to the hypothesis. It is possible that most of the patients studied belong to certain group, such as children, women or elders. If so, the results of the study are not proper to all sorts of people.  Without any substantiated information about the representative of the studied patient, I cannot agree with the arguer’s suggestion.

Thirdly, there may be some side effects or other obstacles to impede the implement of antibiotic treatment, or there are other more effective ways to cure muscle strain.  Even if the antibiotic is to some extent effective in treating muscle strain, perhaps the side effects endanger the health of patients. Moreover, perhaps some other treatment such as massage could be more effective than antibiotic.

To sum up, the arguer’s suggestion is unjustifiable as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide convincing evidences to support the hypothesis, in addition, the arguer also have to offer information that whether all patients suffered muscle strains should take antibiotics. To better evaluate the argument, I still need to know whether the antibiotic has some side affects that inflict more harm to patients than benefit from healing.

sunnie_518UID: 2136235

The arguer claims that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics. To support this claim, the arguer points out a hypothesis that secondary infection could hinder the healing of the severe muscle strain. To prove the hypothesis, the arguer alsocites preliminary results of a study that illustrate the effectiveness of the antibiotics in treating muscle injuries. The argument seems appealing at first glance, careful scrutiny, however, reveals several flaws of the claim.

To begin with, even assuming the hypothesis is proved by the study, the arguer arbitrarily expands the hypothesis to all the patients who suffered muscle strain. The hypothesis points out that secondary infection may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, whereas the arguer suggests all muscle strained patients, It is hardly to concede that all the patients suffering muscle strain are severe, and there are no evidences to prove that the situation of normal muscle strains are the same as the serious ones. Hence the suggestion of the arguer is basically unconvincing.（这点我想都没想到）

Secondly, the results of the study are specious in several aspects. On the one hand, the arguer fails to prove that the conditions of the two groups of patients are similar, such conditions include the treatments, the severity of the strain, the healthy conditions about the patients and ages and gender. Absent any of the information mentioned above, the results of the survey are dubious. On the other hand, the arguer fails to illustrate whether the patients are representative of the whole population. Merely based on the two groups of patient could hardly lend any credible support to the hypothesis. It is possible that most of the patients studied belong to certain group, such as children, women or elders. If so, the results of the study are not proper to all sorts of people.  Without any substantiated information about the representative of the studied patient, I cannot agree with the arguer’s suggestion.

Thirdly, there may be some side effects or other obstacles to impede the implement of antibiotic treatment, or there are other more effective ways to cure muscle strain.  Even if the antibiotic is to some extent effective in treating muscle strain, perhaps the side effects endanger the health of patients. Moreover, perhaps some other treatment such as massage could be more effective than antibiotic.

To sum up, the arguer’s suggestion is unjustifiable as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide convincing evidences to support the hypothesis, in addition, the arguer also have to offer information that whether all patients suffered muscle strains should take antibiotics. To better evaluate the argument, I still need to know whether the antibiotic has some side affects that inflict more harm to patients than benefit from healing.
楼主的argument写的好呀，好像有了自己的模版了。