Argument51(340) [076G飞跃小组]zengyouwen第2次作业 字数还是上不去啊

zengyouwenUID: 2284999

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: 340          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-25
提纲：
1.两种不同医生治愈水平当然不一样了
2.患者水平对于实验结果的影响也很重要
3.错误的推广让所有的患者都接受这类治疗
The arguer claims that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics in his statement. Because the experiment conducted by two groups of person recently, and the group that takes the antibiotics recuperates 40 percent quicker. From my perspective, I think that this argument is not convincing for it suffers from several fallacies as follows.

First, the experiment conducted by two different doctors makes the result lacks of credibility. Because one group is treated by the doctor who specializes in the sports medicine, while the other treated by a general physician, which might make the treatment the patients got different from each other thus the time they take to recuperate will be different from each other. For that general physician might know just a little about the sports cure and this group treated by this doctor might lead to a long time cure, also make the result  lack of credibility.


Secondly, the patients' hurt of muscle strain is not clear whether it is at the same stage that will affect the time of recuperation. If the group treated by the general physician is badly hurt but the other group just slightly hurt, how come that the result of time can have comparablility. And the other, the experiment is not clear conducted by whom, or the accuracy of the data get from the experiment thus the result will be no more convincing.

Thirdly, the arguer commit a fallacy of haste conclusion that all the patients diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Just by this experiment ,the arguer calls for all the patients follow this way ,if this result is just a random outcome, and does not have any use of representive , thus this claim would cause a big mistake and make other patients attend his advised treatment suffer a lot from the misleading result and advice.

In sum, this argument has several weak points that lend no support to its conclusion. If effective and enough evidence can be given the result will be much better.

[ 本帖最后由 zengyouwen 于 2007-2-26 11:01 编辑 ]