Argument51 【Persistence小组】第6次作业

worenleflyUID: 2270315

In this argument, the author claims that all the patients, diagnosed with muscle strain, should be well advised to take antibiotics as part of treatment. This statement is based on the observation that the patients, being treated in the group which took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment, heal 40 percent quicker than typically expected, whereas the other group which did not take antibiotics, in contrast, seems more slowly but not significantly reduced. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.
First of all, the argument commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Doctors assume that secondary infections, after severe muscle strain, may hamper some patients from healing. According to the cited study, patients in the first group which toke the antibiotics heals quicker than the other group which did not take. This study can not reveal that antibiotics are effective to cure the secondary infections occurred after muscle strain, because no clear evidence establishes that the patients participated in the study all suffers from the secondary infections. Perhaps patients in the first group did not infect, or this group of patients catches this kind of secondary infections easily. If so, it is unwarranted to conclude that the treatment using antibiotics for healing secondary infections is suitable to every patient diagnosed with muscle strain.
Second, the comparison of the two groups in this argument is unreliable and incomplete. No evidence supports that every patient's individual condition is similar, such as age, sex and so for. As we all known, the difference in individual condition may cause distinct difference in recovering speed. So we can assert that the first group patients heal quicker just because the effect of using antibiotics throughout the whole process, maybe they own better physical quality than the second group. On the other hand, the doctor for the first group who specialized in the sports medicine is more suitable in healing the illness caused from the muscle, while the second group's doctor, a general physician, is not the right one for treating sport illness. Unless we are certain that the participated groups have the same doctor, or doctors with similar methods in treating the illness which caused by sport and also similar capability, we have every reason to doubt the trustworthiness of this comparative study. Yet there is any evidence about the sugar pills. Maybe that kind of sugar can make the infections worse. If so, the statement is more unreliable.
Additionally, as we known, many antibiotics have side-effects to human body. If the antibiotics taken in the first group's treating have some side-effect, even very little, patients' body will suffer strong hurt from the side-effects being accumulated though the treatment and may cause a violent reaction.
To conclude, this argument is not well reasoned as it stands. To make it acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that patients participated in this study are all suffering from the secondary infections after severe muscle strain? To evaluate the argument, the author would have to produce more evidence regarding the patients'   physical quality, the doctor and the ingredient of the sugar pills taken in the second group.

Andy85UID: 2250503

In this argument, the author claims that all the patients, diagnosed with muscle strain, should be well advised to take antibiotics as part of treatment. This statement is based on the observation that the patients, being treated in the group which took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment, healed 40 percent quicker than typically expected, whereas the recuperation time of the other group which did not take antibiotics, in contrast, seems [more slowly]longer but not significantly reduced.注意啊，这句子的主语到底是谁，被减少的是谁 This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.
First of all, the argument commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Doctors assume that secondary infections, after severe muscle strain, may hamper some patients from healing. According to the cited study, patients in the first group which toke the antibiotics heals quicker than the other group which did not take. This study can not reveal that antibiotics are effective to cure the secondary infections occurred after muscle strain, because no clear evidence establishes indicates or demonstrates that the patients participated in the study all suffers from the secondary infections. Perhaps patients in the first group did not infect这是一个及物动词，get infected, or this group of patients catches this kind of secondary infections easily. If so, it is unwarranted to conclude that the treatment using antibiotics for healing secondary infections is suitable to every patient diagnosed with muscle strain.
[Second] 是不是应该用Secondly, the comparison of the two groups in this argument is unreliable and incomplete. No evidence supports that every patient's individual重复了 condition is similar, such as age, sex and so for 是 so forth? 没见过so for, 孤陋寡闻了. As we all known, the difference in individual condition may cause distinct difference in recovering speed. So we can assert that the first group patients heal quicker just because the effect of using antibiotics throughout the whole process, maybe they own better physical quality than the second group.这句话不通啊 On the other hand, the doctor for the first group who specialized in the sports medicine is more suitable in healing the illness caused from the muscle, while the second group's doctor, a general physician, is not the right one for treating [sport illness这个词……-_-!]. Unless we are certain that the participated groups have the same doctor, or doctors with similar methods in treating the illness which caused by sport and also similar capability, we have every reason to doubt the trustworthiness of this comparative study. Yet there is any evidence about the sugar pills. Maybe that kind of sugar can make the infections worse. If so, the statement is more unreliable.
Additionally, as we known, many antibiotics have side-effects to human body. If the antibiotics taken in the first group's [treating] treatment have some side-effect, even very little, patients' body will suffer strong hurt from the side-effects [being] accumulated though the treatment and may cause a violent reaction.
To conclude, this argument is not well reasoned as it stands. To make it more acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that patients participated in this study are all suffering from the secondary infections after severe muscle strain[?]. [To evaluate the argument这句话什么意思？], the author would have to produce more evidences regarding the patients'   physical quality, the doctor and the ingredient of the sugar pills taken in the second group.
不错，条理清楚，错误也找的很到位。语言方面还要再下点功夫！