argument51 待拍,必回

nicaishibiantaiUID: 2259558

51 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."

Relying on a comparison between two groups of patients, one is treated by a specilists in sports medicine, while the other group by a general physician, the arguer comes to a conclusion that any patient diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics to get quick recovered. Nevertheless, the argument is weakened by its specious assumption, which renders it unreliable.

The major flaw in the argument is that the author suggests that due to the efficiency of antibiotics, the first group's recuperation time was quicker than expected, while there is no sufficient evidence supporting it. First, the recuperation time expected may be a little longer than the fact, yet the normal recuperation time is just the observed time of the patients. Second, even though these patients get quicker recovered, the author fails to rule out other possibilities: (1) Dr. Newland, a specialist in sports medicine, maybe more skilled in treating patients with such disease, and he well knew the way in which they should exercise or what food they should have; (2) Also, it is likely that his patients were in good health before injured, owing the ability to recover by themselves. In this case, antibiotics may have little help in this treatment.

Moreover, average recuperation time of patients treated by Dr. Alton was not significantly reduced is not the result of not taking antibiotics but other aspects. (1) This general physician, although he or she maybe an expertise in medicine, perhaps lacked sufficient knowledge and experiences to treat patients with this kind of injuries. The methods he or she applied maybe not suit for them. (2) This group patients may also get hurt heavily than the first group, and thus they needed more time to get well. (3) Perhaps the treating conditions was not that good, engendering these patients to be in bad mood and not likely to recover. Therefore, neither antibiotics nor sugar pills would do much in this muscle strain treatment.

Additionally, the arguer also assumes that antibiotics may help to keep patients from getting secondary infections, yet with no evidence involved in this argument. Even if antibiotics do play a great role in muscle strain treatment, it does not indicate that these antibiotics were efficient in preventing patients getting infections. Maybe antibiotics have other effects rather than stated above, like propelling muscles to get well. And no evidence demonstrates in the two groups that they were exposed to infections.

To sum up, this argument is unconvincing and needs better reasoning. Only when the two experiments were performed with the same method by one doctor, could it be more convincing and reliable.

边缘泪UID: 2281898

一点愚见～～～～～～这个题目是关于实验的．那两组实验的意义就在对照了．所以实验对象的选择，实验条件诸如词类的都是关于实验的结论的真实性．文章分别讲了两组实验的病人，是不是忽略一个题目很重要的暗示：实验对照环节出问题了．一二段都是将的细节的问题，核心的错误没有点出来．
第三段感觉是后来上面写完了又找，然后加进去的．

总体感觉～～～～～～～～小的问题分析得很深入，很透彻．有功底．恩．但是整体框架还需要调整一下．呵呵．就这样了．我睡觉了哦．加油加油．

nicaishibiantaiUID: 2259558

刚上完新东方, 老师这么讲的,说是这么对比问题要先写, 然后再挑点其他的错误就好了,我现在也很晕,不知道什么问题是主要的了
另外对照环节的问题能再讲详细一点吗?谢谢了