argument51 12月高强组周五作业

sunnie_518UID: 2136235

"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：536         用时：0:40:00          日期：2006-11-29
提纲：1假说不可靠。
      2 study 不可信，不能说明抗生素一定。有效病人的年龄，性别，身体状况不同，会使治疗产生不同的结果
      3 医生的水平也对治疗有影响
      4 结论推的过远，不能说明所有的病人都适用。
In this argument, the speaker concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support his conclusion, the speaker cites preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. According to the survey, the first group of patients, treated by Dr. Newland who specializes in sports medicine took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment and recuperated, on average, 40 percent quicker than expected. While, the patients in the second group, were treated by a general physician and given sugar bills, although them believed they were taking antibiotics. Their recuperation time was not significantly reduced. The speaker's conclusion suffers from a series of logical problems, and is therefore wholly unpersuasive.

To begin with, the speaker's assertion that secondary infections do happen on the patients suffering severe muscle strain is unwarranted. It depends on the assumption that use of antibiotics is the only factor can shorten recuperation time. To support this assumption, the speaker presents the results of a study which, however, appear to suffer from several logical problems. First, no information such as age, sex or physical conditions about the patients in these two groups respectively are provided to us. Either the possibilities that the patients in group one is younger than those in two or that the patients with better physical conditions are in group one but in group two could be the reason why the recuperation times of patients in the first group is shorter than that patients in the second one.

In addition, different experience and professional knowledge of these two doctors can also account for different recuperation time. It is probable that the doctor in the first group who specializes in sports medicine can give patients more professional and better treatment that the doctor who is a general physician in the second group. Moreover, the speaker fails to rule out the possibility that the sugar bills given to the patients in the second group would hinder the effect of the treatment and thus longer the recuperation time. Overall, without excluding other factors that would have effect on the treatment, the assumption that use of antibiotics is the real factor causing the shorter recuperation time in the first group than in the second group is ungrounded, not to mention the assertion relying on it.

Finally, even if the antibiotics, in some extents, have effects on curing muscle injuries, it is presumptuous to require all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Perhaps, the antibiotics may bring some side-effects such as nauseating which will endanger patients' health or some patients who may be allergic to the antibiotics can not receive it as treatment. Additionally, the speaker does not rule out the possibility that other measures such as acupuncture could generate even better treatment effects than antibiotics.

In summary, the speaker's conclusion can not be taken as seriously as it stands. To strengthen it, the speaker provides convincible evidences to support the hypothesis. Furthermore, he should present complete information about patients and doctors in the study. To better evaluate the argument, we would need to know whether the antibiotics are suitable for all patients.

waidswUID: 2256074

In this argument, the speaker concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support his conclusion, the speaker cites preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. According to the survey, the first group of patients, treated by Dr. Newland who specializes in sports medicine took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment and recuperated, on average, 40 percent quicker than expected. While, the patients in the second group, were treated by a general physician and given sugar bills, although them believed they were taking antibiotics. Their recuperation time was not significantly reduced. The speaker's conclusion suffers from a series of logical problems, and is therefore wholly unpersuasive.（觉得开头有点长）

To begin with, the speaker's assertion that secondary infections do happen on the patients suffering severe muscle strain is unwarranted. It depends on the assumption that use of antibiotics is the only factor can shorten recuperation time. To support this assumption, the speaker presents the results of a study which, however, appear to suffer from several logical problems. First, （这里的first是什么意思, 没有second啊）no information such as age, sex or physical conditions about the patients in these two groups respectively are provided to us. Either the possibilities that the patients in group one is younger than those in （group）two or that the patients with better physical conditions are in group one but in group two(有点罗嗦，可以写为either…or …could be the possibilities that cause the…. )could be the reason why the recuperation times of patients in the first group is shorter than that patients in the second one. （原作者并没有说use of antibiotics is the only factor can shorten recuperation time，只是说用antibiotic 可以促进康复，）

In addition, different experience and professional knowledge of these two doctors can also account for different recuperation time. It is probable that the doctor in the first group who specializes in sports medicine can give patients more professional and better treatment that the doctor who is a general physician in the second group. Moreover, the speaker fails to rule out the possibility that the sugar bills given to the patients in the second group would hinder the effect of the treatment and thus longer the recuperation time. Overall, （In a word是不是会更好些？）without excluding other factors that would have effect on the treatment, the assumption that use of antibiotics is the real factor causing the shorter recuperation time in the first group than in the second group is ungrounded, not to mention the assertion relying on it.

Finally, even if the antibiotics, in some extents, have effects on curing muscle injuries, it is presumptuous to require all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Perhaps, the antibiotics may bring some side-effects such as nauseating which will endanger patients' health or some patients who may be allergic to the antibiotics can not receive it as treatment. Additionally, the speaker does not rule out the possibility that other measures such as acupuncture could generate even better treatment effects than antibiotics.（这段写得不错！）

In summary, the speaker's conclusion can not be taken as seriously as it stands. To strengthen it, the speaker provides convincible evidences to support the hypothesis. Furthermore, he should present complete information about patients and doctors in the study. To better evaluate the argument, we would need to know whether the antibiotics are suitable for all patients.

楼主的这篇Argu写得还不错，该驳斥的都驳斥到了。