argument51 认真作文互改小组第9次作业 taro

taroUID: 2286098

Argument51
“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.”

Before prescribing antibiotics as part of the treatment to the general patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain, the evidence given in the argument should be examined from several other angles.

Primarily, the author overlooks the possible differences between the patients in two study groups. In the cited study, we know nothing about the ages, general health and injury degree of the patients involved, all of which may contribute to the length of recuperation time. If in the first group, patients are mostly athletes aging from 20 to 30 with light muscle strain, while the majority of the patients in the second group are vulnerable seniors who suffer from severe muscle injuries, then the shorter average recuperation time of the patients in the first group may be mainly attributed to patients’ own conditions. It might also be the case that patients in the second group are busy professional people who simply do not have much time to rest. Instead of waiting for complete recovery, they keep on their heavy work, which might cause them second infections, consequently costing a longer time to recover regardless of what sort of medicine they take.  

Again, since the two groups of patients are treated by doctors with different clinic experience and expertise respectively, possibly it is doctors’ treatments, rather than antibiotics, that lead to a different average recuperation time. As a specialist in sports medicine, Dr. Newland probably has developed some efficient way to heal muscle strain from the experience in dealing with such kind of occupational disease in athletes. In other words, besides taking antibiotics, patients in the first group may be given some other physical treatment or medicines. While Dr. Alton, a general physician who is less likely to be accomplished in curing muscle injuries, may apply a poorer remedy plan leading to slower recovery. Besides, it is mentioned in the study that sugar pills are taken by the patients in the second group as placebos, yet the author refers little information demonstrating that those pills have no negative effects, which may also delay the recovery process.

Furthermore, even if antibiotics did in fact significantly shorten the recuperation time of severely muscle-strained patients, it is still too hasty to recommend all patients who suffer from muscle strain to take antibiotics. The author fails to prove if antibiotics have any side-effect that would make patients feel uncomfortable, by causing a headache or nausea maybe, especially for patients who are allergic to antibiotics or for the pregnant women. What is worse, there might be something in the antibiotics which, if taken in prescribed amounts regularly, would eventually constitute a menace to the overall health of healthy people, let alone the patients.

In sum, the suggestion that treatment for all patients suffering muscle strain, no matter severe or slight, should include antibiotics is far from convincing because the evidence listed lends little credible support for the inference. The author just disguises the fact that there exist other possibilities that might undermine the conclusion.

wangchangxiaoUID: 2123968

Before prescribing antibiotics as part of the treatment to the general patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain, the evidence given in the argument should be examined from several other angles.

Primarily, the author overlooks the possible differences between the patients in two study groups. In the cited study, we know nothing about the ages, general health and injury degree of the patients involved, all of which may contribute to the length of recuperation time. If in the first group, patients are mostly athletes aging from 20 to 30 with light muscle strain, while the majority of the patients in the second group are vulnerable seniors who suffer from severe muscle injuries, then the shorter average recuperation time of the patients in the first group may be mainly attributed to patients’ own conditions. It might also be the case that patients in the second group are busy professional people who simply do not have much time to rest. Instead of waiting for complete recovery, they keep on their heavy work, which might cause them second infections, consequently costing a longer time to recover regardless of what sort of medicine they take.  (TARO的ALTERNATIVE举的真好,但这里有一个问题,作者是把第二组恢复慢是由于SECONDARY INFECTIONS作为一个最基本的前提,但是提供的证据并不能说明这个前提成立,所以是不是可以先攻击这个前提呢?)

Again, since the two groups of patients are treated by doctors with different clinic experience and expertise respectively, possibly it is doctors’ treatments, rather than antibiotics, that lead to a different average recuperation time. As a specialist in sports medicine, Dr. Newland probably has developed some efficient way to heal muscle strain from the experience in dealing with such kind of occupational disease in athletes. In other words, besides taking antibiotics, patients in the first group may be given some other physical treatment or medicines. While Dr. Alton, a general physician who is less likely to be accomplished in curing muscle injuries, may apply a poorer remedy plan leading to slower recovery. Besides, it is mentioned in the study that sugar pills are taken by the patients in the second group as placebos, yet the author refers little information demonstrating that those pills have no negative effects, which may also delay the recovery process. (MUSCLE STRAIN 可以有很多中啊,有运动造成的,也有日常生活造成的,TARO在这里是不是可以先假设实验中的病人可能大部分都是由于运动造成的，在此基础上,再说两个医生的作用?)

Furthermore, even if antibiotics did in fact significantly shorten the recuperation time of severely muscle-strained patients, it is still too hasty to recommend all patients who suffer from muscle strain to take antibiotics. The author fails to prove if antibiotics have any side-effect that would make patients feel uncomfortable, by causing a headache or nausea maybe, especially for patients who are allergic to antibiotics or for the pregnant women. What is worse, there might be something in the antibiotics which, if taken in prescribed amounts regularly, would eventually constitute a menace to the overall health of healthy people, let alone the patients.(还有一点哦,那个实验的前提是SEVERE 的肌肉损伤,但结论确是ALL, 这个也可以攻击下哈)

In sum, the suggestion that treatment for all patients suffering muscle strain, no matter severe or slight, should include antibiotics is far from convincing because the evidence listed lends little credible support for the inference. The author just disguises the fact that there exist other possibilities that might undermine the conclusion.

TARO厉害哦，写了好多, 来批批我的吧,还有个小建议,下次带上提纲吧,这样好看些,呵呵.我阅读比较差哈，见谅.

我的:
http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=601012&extra

taroUID: 2286098

I see ur points but I cannot write that way within 30 minutes, not even in an hour maybe.
Thousands of thx remains.

[ 本帖最后由 taro 于 2007-2-2 00:10 编辑 ]

wang984UID: 2284383

同意组长的看法
我也觉得secondary infection有问题，可我没那么写

例子展开的很充分，再看自己的就觉得欲言又止，没有适当展开
学习中
加油

taroUID: 2286098

THX for ur commenting!