Argument51【SWEETBOX小组】第五次作业 by 雅典娜的宠儿

wzhfutureUID: 2264867

51The 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."




In the newsletter, the writer advocates that  patients who are  
diagnosed with muscle strain should be well advised to take
antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify his advocation  
the  writer cites the hypothesis on secondary infection. And the   
hypothesis has been proved by a study in which some patients ,taking  
antibiotics and treated by a sports medicine specialized doctor ,  
recover  more quickly than others who take sugar pills and treated by

a general physician. However, I find the argument logically flawed in

several critical respects.
In the first place ,the writer neglects the fact that two groups of  
patients are treated by different doctors .Dr.Newland who specializes

in sports medicine are of course more clinically experienced in  
curing muscle injuries than the general physician Dr.Alton. He may  
apply more efficient methods in the treatment leading to shorter  
recuperation time. While Dr.Alton  lacking relevant knowledge , may
use  
general method not aiming directly at muscle injuries, so his  
patients may recover slowly. This difference may play a significant  
role in different tempo of the recuperation.
Secondly, the author doesn't provide the fundamental information on  
patients in the study.  Patients in Dr.Newland' group may be much  
more healthier and robuster than others,thus it's easier for them to  
recover.Or muscle injuries of them are less severe .So their  
recuperation time is quicker .Probabilities also exist in the facts  
that they  have experience and knowledge ,so they can treat  
themselves besides the doctor' help.Thus the advice is unsound  
without these information.
Thirdly,the author unfairly rules out other possibilities leading to  
the quicker recuperation of  patients in Dr.Newland' group.Their diet

may be more healthy and rich in nutrition including  
vitamin,protein,etc .It's also possible that their living conditions  
are much better, hasting the tempo to recover. Good mood may  as well

contribute to the quick recuperation rather than antibiotics for it  
can bring about better appetite and sleeping. We are not convinced on

the advice due to these possibilities.
In final analysis,this newsletter contains several critical flaws  
which render it unconvincing. To bolster his advice,the author must  
make a study himself.In the study, two groups of patients must be in  
the same conditions and doctor must be the same one who  specializes  

in sports medicine in two groups.Also the diet ,living conditions and

other facts that may hinder a correct judgment should be the  
same. Only after this improved study can we conclude whether the  we  
should take the advice or not.

小破孩UID: 2125288

In the newsletter, the writer advocates that  patients who are  
diagnosed with muscle strain should be well advised(no need) to take
antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify his advocation  
the  writer cites the hypothesis (on secondary infection. And the   
hypothesis has been ) no need here, make your sentence shorter
proved by a study. begin a new sentence (in which) some patients ,taking  
antibiotics and treated by a sports medicine specialized doctor ,  
recover  more quickly than others who take sugar pills and treated by
a general physician. However, I find the argument logically flawed in
several critical respects.your beginning is somewhat too long, I guess you don't have to restate the details of the argument, people who score you of course would know which argument you are writing about. Pay more attention to the body in the exam. : )

In the first place ,the writer neglects the fact that two groups of  
patients are treated by different doctors .Dr.Newland who specializes
in sports medicine are of course (what is the evidence for you to say so sure? How about using possible or likely, it is your hypothesis anyway~~) more clinically experienced in  
curing muscle injuries than the general physician Dr.Alton.why? He may  
apply more efficient how? methods in the treatment leading to shorter  
recuperation time. While Dr.Alton  lacking relevant knowledge , may
use general method not aiming directly at muscle injuries, so his  
patients may recover slowly. This difference may play a significant  
role in different tempo of the recuperation.some more analysis would be better

Secondly, the author doesn't provide the fundamental information on  
patients in the study. I guess this paragraph and the frist one could combie, both are talking about the validity or intepretation of the study. Add something here like why you need these information? Patients in Dr.Newland' group may be much  
more healthier and robuster than others,thus it's easier for them to  
recover.Or muscle injuries of them are less severe .So their  
recuperation time is quicker .Probabilities also exist in the facts  
that they  have experience and knowledge ,so they can treat  
themselves besides the doctor' help.Thus the advice is unsound  
without these information.

Thirdly,the author unfairly rules out other possibilities leading to  
the quicker recuperation of  patients in Dr.Newland' group.add, for instance or for example Their diet
may be more healthy and rich in nutrition including  
vitamin,protein,etc .It's also possible that their living conditions  
are much better, hasting the tempo to recover. Good mood may  as well
contribute to the quick recuperation rather than antibiotics for it  
can bring about better appetite and sleeping. We are not convinced on
the advice due to these possibilities.

In final analysis,this newsletter contains several critical flaws  
which render it unconvincing. To bolster his advice,the author must  
make a study himself.why? In the study, two groups of patients must be in  
the same conditions and doctor must be the same one who  specializes  
in sports medicine in two groups.Also the diet ,living conditions and
other facts that may hinder a correct judgment should be the  
same. Only after this improved study(improvement) can we conclude whether the  we  
should take the advice or not.

Frankly speaking, I don't think the logical faws you figure out in your article are the crucial ones. I guess after reading others article, you may find some more critial unconvicing analysis. I guess since GRE is examine more about logic rather than the language. It is more important to figure out the leathal faws and give it a hit. That would be a lot better. I cannot type Chinese here in this computer in my lab, sorry for the incovenience.