Argument51【0706G－CRUSADE小组】第4次作业 by vanlucker

vanluckerUID：2267009

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.”
WORDS: 524          TIME: 0:50:00          DATE: 2007-2-22

1.       no evidence show that the two groups in the same circumstances(number of patient, the extent of muscle strain of individual, treatment condition, etc.)
2.       if 1 ok, it is also suspicious that antibiotic can cure secondary infection: the different special of doctors, the effectiveness of sugar pills, and second group might be took pills regularly(no information about this possibility)
3.       even if 2 ok, the arguer fail to show that antibiotics might cause by-effect: 1.the average 40 percent might include allergic ones who contrarily healing slowly;2. the average time of 2rd group might include ones who were healing quickly.
4.       even if study ok! the analogy between severe and ordinary might be dubious: the by-effect of antibiotics to ordinary ones,etc.
5.       conclusion


        In this recommendation the arguer concluded that antibiotics should be use to cure all patients who suffer from muscle strain. To support this recommendation he cites a study concerning the average recuperation time of patients. Close inspection of his evidences reveal, nevertheless, that the recommendation suffers from several significant fallacies.
        To begin with, the arguer fails to provide evidences that the study of two groups was going in the same circumstances. Perhaps the population of patient was too small that they might not be the representatives of the entire patients who suffer from severe muscle strain. Or perhaps the extent of muscle strain of individuals was different that might cause the different recuperation time. Moreover, it is entirely possible that the two groups were cured with different treatment condition such as different medical implements.
        Even if the two groups were cured in the same circumstances, the fact that the1st group’s patients who took antibiotics recovered quickly does not necessarily imply that the effectiveness of antibiotics is responsible for the quicker recover time. The arguer provides no direct information as to the degree to which the different specials of doctors might affect the consequence of the study. Perhaps Dr. Newland who specializes in sport medicine can treat the patient recovering rapidly with his distinct curing methods while Dr. Alton did not.
        Given that the doctors’ different specials have nothing to with the recuperation time, the consequences of the study were still suspicious. First, the 40 percentage which the recover time less than typical expected is just an average statistics. It is entirely possible that the recuperation time of some individuals is slower than expected due to the by-effect of antibiotics. And perhaps the sugar pills which the 2rd group’s patient took could serve someone’s healing well due to the slight muscle strain that might resulted in recover quickly whereas the average recuperation time of the 2rd group was not significantly reduced. Accordingly, which medicine the muscle strain patients should take is based on the individual situation and the extent of the disease.
        Even if the study was justified, the arguer makes a dubious analogy between the severe muscle patients and the entire muscle patients which might includes the ordinary patients. Although the antibiotics might use for secondary infections, the arguer fail to provide any assurance that it would be effective to use for ordinary ones who does not have the secondary infection. Perhaps the antibiotics using to the ordinary ones would cause the allergy that might increase their recuperation time or even cause other serious diseases.
        In sum, the recommend not only is logically unsound based on the study but also relies on a doubtful analogy. To strengthen the argument the arguer should provide more details about the study such as the circumstances and treatment conditions. And the arguer should also provide clear evidences that both by-effect of antibiotics and the effectiveness of sugar pills would not affect the study. Finally, to better evaluate the recommendation I would also need assurances that the antibiotics could also serve the ordinary patients well, or at least will not cause other diseases such as allergic.

限时失败的主要原因还是A语句不熟悉,还在努力熟悉中…..同时思路不够清晰,感觉好多都要写却搞不清楚哪个是重点

yyyfffUID：169234

argument也500多字啊？
重点批2到3个错误，其他的简要概括就可以了吧

vanluckerUID：2267009

有时候明知道该少写点,可是不知不觉就一大堆....