Argument51 【Persistence小组】第6次作业 拍吧！

Andy85UID: 2250503

A51
论断：所有的肌肉拉伤的病人都应该吃抗生素
前提：肌肉拉伤引起二次感染
论据：对照实验
对照实验的结果——肌肉拉伤引起二次感染——病人应该服用抗生素
1 抗生素也许会引起其它副作用，不适合服用
2 实验可疑
  a 两组病人的资料不详，如年龄，身体状况
  b 两个医生的医疗技术是否相同，前者是体育方面的医生，可能经验更丰富，提供的医疗手段更有利于病人康复
  c 另一组服用了糖片，也许糖片对病人恢复起相反作用
3 医生们只是怀疑肌肉严重拉伤的人会二次感染，普通拉伤也要吃抗生素？

The arguer asserts that doctors had better advice all patient who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their
treatment, for the reason that secondary infections may prevent them from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, which has been
proven to be true by the preliminary result of a study. However, I'm afraid the arguer should take a closer examination over this
assertion.

Firstly, let's take the arguer’s assumption that antibiotics have a positive function in treating secondary infection as true. Since
doctors have suspected for a long time that secondary infections serve a counterproductive purpose in the patients' healing process,
the same research must have been carried out by some doctors, but why he or she doesn’t advice patients to take such treatment.
We can reasonably conclude that, antibiotics, although it can cure secondary infections, might provide other undesirable effect which
can be considerable harmful to the patients’ fitness.

Secondly, the arguer cited the result of a study to support his assertion, which seems to be convincing that antibiotics can actually
cure secondary infection. However, there are still so many suspicious respects in the study. The doctor in the first group could be
more expert in treating muscle strain as he specializes in sports medicine while the latter is only an ordinary general physician. Further
more, there is little information about those patients in the two groups. If there are more young patients whose physical conditions are better in the first group, we can take the result that their recuperation time was quicker than typically expected for granted. And the
arguer also fails to provide evidence that the sugar pills taken by the second group would not produce any converse influence to the
treatment performed by the general physician. If so, the fact that the recuperation time of the second group was not significant
reduced is also reasonable, and cannot be favor to the arguer's claim.

Moreover, doctors only suspect that secondary infection would attack those who suffer from severe muscle strain. Then, assuming that
the antibiotics are effective, do all patients need to take them to shorten their recuperation time even if their muscle injuries are not
that serious?

To conclude, if the arguer really want to prove that patients suffering muscle strain would also suffer secondary infection and antibiotics would be effective in their treatment, more information should be provided and more researches should be conducted.

[ 本帖最后由 Andy85 于 2007-2-6 16:40 编辑 ]

nostrumUID: 2124189

请修改发帖格式

格式见置顶帖子

Andy85UID: 2250503

不好意思，忙中出错了…Sorry！

worenleflyUID: 2270315

The arguer asserts that doctors had better advice all patient(+s?) who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of their
treatment, for the reason that secondary infections may prevent them from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, which has been
proven to be true by the preliminary result of a study. However, I'm afraid the arguer should take a closer examination over this
assertion.

Firstly, let's take the arguer’s assumption that antibiotics have a positive function in treating secondary infection as true. Since
doctors have suspected for a long time that secondary infections serve a counterproductive purpose in the patients' healing process,
the same research must have been carried out by some doctors, but why he or she doesn’t advice patients to take such treatment.
We can reasonably conclude that, antibiotics, although it can cure secondary infections, might provide other undesirable effect which
can be considerable harmful to the patients’ fitness.

Secondly, the arguer cited the result of a study to support his assertion, which seems to be convincing that antibiotics can actually
cure secondary infection. However, there are still so many suspicious respects in the study. The doctor in the first group could be
more expert in treating muscle strain as he specializes in sports medicine while the latter is only an ordinary general physician. Further
more, there is little information about those patients in the two groups. If there are more young patients whose physical conditions are better in the first group, we can take the result that their recuperation time was quicker than typically expected for granted. And the
arguer also fails to provide evidence that the sugar pills taken by the second group would not produce any converse influence to the
treatment performed by the general physician. If so, the fact that the recuperation time of the second group was not significant
reduced is also reasonable, and cannot be favor to the arguer's claim.

Moreover, doctors only suspect that secondary infection would attack those who suffer from severe muscle strain. Then, assuming that
the antibiotics are effective, do all patients need to take them to shorten their recuperation time even if their muscle injuries are not
that serious?

To conclude, if the arguer really want(+s) to prove that patients suffering muscle strain would also suffer secondary infection and antibiotics would be effective in their treatment, more information should be provided and more researches should be conducted.
(文章条理清晰，攻击点明确，语法更是令本人自愧不如，唯一不足，就是第一个攻击点，意思都明白，就是感觉读起来很不舒服，看看可不可以调整一下，其他的都很好的！)