Argument51 【CSMY作文互改第四小组】自己的作业

ctexUID: 2241178

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."
WORDS: 317          TIME: 上午 12:30:16          DATE: 2007-1-19IN AWP
Second edition:352 words 基本限时成功

Bases on a medical study, the author draws a conclusion that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Close scrutiny to the argument reveals that there are several flaws as follows.

To begin with, the author cites an unwarranted suspicion from doctors. The suspicion points out that the secondary infections may prolong the healing period of severe muscle strain. Will all patients with muscle strain definitely have the secondary infections? The author fails to provide evidence concerning that. Some patients with slight muscle strain may recover only through having enough rest and appropriate massage. So prescribing antibiotics to them is unnecessary.

Secondly, the author provides the results about a study of two groups of patients, which lack meaning in the sense of statistics. First, he fails to supply the sample feature of two groups. It is quite possible that the sample characteristics in two groups are so different that the comparison I is meaningless. For example, the patients in the first group may be young students who are in good physical conditions; however, the ones in the second group may be elders whose body conditions and immune system is weak. Obviously, the patients in the first group will recover faster than the ones in the second group do.

Thirdly, a piece of important information in the process of treatment is ignored by the author, which is the patients in the first group who are diagnosed by a specialist in sports medicine but the members of in the second who are diagnosed by a general doctor. A common sense tells me that the specialist in sports medicine is better at treating muscle strain than the general doctor. The specialist will particularly prescribe medicines according to the situation of the patients, while the generalist may treat the patients as his common medical knowledge regardless of the situation of the patients.

In sum, the conclusion is unpersuasive. When a doctor prescribes antibiotics to patients diagnosed with muscle strain, he should consider the situation of the patient. Besides, he should confirm the fact whether the patients is sensitive to antibiotics.