ARGUMENT51 飞跃小组disyoo第二次作业 字数还是上不去……

disyooUID: 2223964

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"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: 382          TIME: 0:31:14          DATE: 2007-2-25

In this memo, the author concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotic as part of their treatment. To support the conclusion the author cites a study of two groups patients which shows that the recuperation time of the first group which the patients in it are treated with antibiotics, is shorter than the second group whose patients are took none antibiotics. The author also presents that the two groups of patients are treated by different doctors. However the argument relies on a series of analogically falling.

First, the author has a incomplete comparison between group 1 and group 2. Failing to show clearly information that whether the two groups of patients are in the same conditions. If the patients in group 1 are all light muscle strain and in that way they can easily be treated, and in the same time the patients in group 2 are all in bad conditions, the quicker of recuperation in group 1 than that in group 2 is incomparable.

Second, lacking information of other treatment which the doctors do both in two groups. Perhaps the doctor in group 1 has some more effective treatment to take care of the patients and that lead to the sooner recuperation. Or perhaps the doctor in group 2 is a newly graduate one who has no experience on treatment to patients that lead a slower recuperation. So lacking necessary information the study is not well evident the conclusion.

Third, the author has no evidence to support that the reducing time of recuperation is coursed by antibiotics. It may be coursed by the nature recuperation the patients have, and the antibiotics are possible a block to it, perhaps without this medicine the patients can be recuperation even quicker. So the antibiotics may be not the mainly reason to cure the muscle strain.

In sum, by lacking creditable information to strongly support in the argument, the conclusion is unbelievable. To strengthen the argument, the author should show more information of the study. The author should also cites more history treatment of each doctor to give a balance background to each of them. In addition, the author need to give more evidence to show it is really effective the antibiotics can recuperate muscle strain.