argument51 [0710G-summer小组]第六次作业by sanliangmm

sanliangmmUID: 2363921

ARGUMENT 51--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."
写的时候觉得自己思路还是很清楚，这样分析也挺好。写完看了之后，又觉得是不是有点混乱？麻烦大家提点意见
[outline]:
         1.研究的前提不一定成立：二次感染可能不发生，选择人数不够可能不具有代表性
         2.研究的两组结果可能不具有比较性。首先论者没有提供任何有关两组病人的资料。另外两位医生的经验和水平也会影响病人康复的速度。第三，不服抗生素的一组食用了糖片，而论者没有给出资料证明这种糖片不会影响病人的康复。所以对这两组病人的研究并不能说明抗生素能使病人康复快。
         3.论断太武断。抗生素还可能会带来其他问题，比如副作用，也可能有的病人会对抗生素过敏。对于这些情况论者没有考虑进来。

Based on results of a study of two groups of patients, the author points out that the results of the study have proved the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after muscle strain, and further concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Close scrutiny of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the author's claim.

To begin with, the author lacks sufficient information about how the study was conducted to prove the hypothesis about the relationship between severe muscle strain and secondary infections. Perhaps secondary infections do not occur in light muscle injuries which were chosen in the study. Moreover, the author fails to indicate that the study also includes a statistically significant number of participants. If the patients in the study amount to an insignificant number, then the study is of little use to draw any firm conclusion--let alone to prove the hypothesis. In short, without considering these, the base of the study is flawness.

The argument also assumes unfairly that the results of two groups of patients are comparable for the reason that the author provides no evidence to substantiate that all conditions potentially affecting the results remains homogeneity in the two groups. Firstly, the author provides no age, sex, or physical profile of the patients. It is entirely possible that one group of people are relatively younger and healthier than another, which lead to shorter recovery time. Secondly, the two groups are treated by different doctors--Dr.Newland, who specializes in sports medicine, and Dr.Alton, who is a general physician. We can not rule out the possibility that it is because Dr.Newland's more sophisticated technique and specialized knowledge on muscle strain than general physician Dr.Alton that patients in his group recovered quicker. Thirdly, the author neglects the possibility that the certain substance in sugar pills given to the second group might keep some patients from healing quickly after muscle strain. Without ruling out these potentially affecting factors, I simply find the study meaningless.

Meanwhile, even if the study would reveal certain correlation between quick healing and antibiotics, the author concludes too hastily that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle stain should be recommended to take antibiotics. Perhaps, the antibiotics might cause some side effects--such as allergy and so forth. Therefore, the author cannot justifiably rely on the effectiveness of antibiotics on some patients to draw any firm conclusion to embrace all patients who suffered from muscle injuries.

To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that secondary infections have relations with quick healing after muscle strain, and that the all muscle injury patients should be treated by antibiotics, because both the prerequisite and grounds of the study cited in the analysis are flawness. To strengthen the argument would have to demonstrate that how the study was designed to reveal the correlation between secondary infections and recovery time, that whether the two groups in study are comparable, and that whether this medicine can be extended to all muscle injuries. Therefore, if the statement had included the given factors mentioned above, the argument would have become more thorough and logically acceptable.

[ 本帖最后由 sanliangmm 于 2007-7-23 15:27 编辑 ]

rainyni0812UID: 2186847

清楚与否的关键就在这个第二部分，这样的写法是可以的，因为主题句中提出的的可比性问题刚好是论证结论的一个非常重要的假设，依据这个将错误归类应该是没有问题的。
The argument also unfairly assumes that the results of two groups of patients are comparable for the reason that the author provides no evidence to substantiate that all conditions potentially affecting the results remains homogeneity in the two groups. Firstly, the author provides no age, sex, or physical profile of the patients. It is entirely possible that one group of people are relatively younger and healthier than another, which lead to shorter recovery time. Secondly, the two groups are treated by different doctors--Dr.Newland, who specializes in sports medicine, and Dr.Alton, who is a general physician. We can not rule out the possibility that it is because Dr.Newland's more sophisticated technique and specialized knowledge on muscle strain than general physician Dr.Alton that patients in his group recovered quicker. Thirdly, the author neglects the possibility that the certain substance in sugar pills given to the second group might keep some patients from healing quickly after muscle strain. Without ruling out these potentially affecting factors, I simply find the study meaningless.

laststrikeUID: 2318203

第一个观点，感觉没什么必要攻击。Because 这是作者给出的背景资料，很难说对不对，而且作者说的也很巧妙，long suspected，这个词用在这里本身感觉就不是让人攻击的。

niuzhistUID: 2363220

ARGUMENT 51--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."
[outline]:
         1.研究的前提不一定成立：二次感染可能不发生，选择人数不够可能不具有代表性
         2.研究的两组结果可能不具有比较性。首先论者没有提供任何有关两组病人的资料。另外两位医生的经验和水平也会影响病人康复的速度。第三，不服抗生素的一组食用了糖片，而论者没有给出资料证明这种糖片不会影响病人的康复。所以对这两组病人的研究并不能说明抗生素能使病人康复快。
         3.论断太武断。抗生素还可能会带来其他问题，比如副作用，也可能有的病人会对抗生素过敏。对于这些情况论者没有考虑进来。

Based on results of a study of two groups of patients, the author points out that the results of the study have proved the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after muscle strain, and further concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.Close scrutiny of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the author's claim.

To begin with, the author lacks sufficient information about how the study was conducted to prove the hypothesis about the relationship between severe muscle strain and secondary infections. Perhaps secondary infections do not occur in light muscle injuries which were chosen in the study. Moreover, the author fails to indicate that the study also includes a statistically significant number of participants. If the patients in the study amount to an insignificant number, then the study is of little use to draw any firm conclusion--let alone to prove the hypothesis. In short, without considering these, the base of the study is flawness.(flawness 好像是个名词)

The argument also assumes unfairly that the results of two groups of patients are comparable for the reason that the author provides no evidence to substantiate that all conditions potentially affecting the results remains homogeneity （homogeneity也是个名词）in the two groups. Firstly, the author provides no age, sex, or physical profile of the patients. It is entirely possible that one group of people are relatively younger and healthier than another（the other）, which lead to shorter recovery time. Secondly, the two groups are treated by different doctors--Dr.Newland, who specializes in sports medicine, and Dr.Alton, who is a general physician. We can not rule out the possibility that it is because Dr.Newland's more sophisticated technique and specialized knowledge on muscle strain than general physician Dr.Alton that patients in his group recovered quicker. Thirdly, the author neglects the possibility that the certain substance in sugar pills given to the second group might keep some patients from healing quickly after muscle strain. Without ruling out these potentially affecting factors, I simply find the study meaningless.

Meanwhile, even if the study would reveal certain correlation between quick healing and antibiotics, the author concludes too hastily that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle stain should be recommended to take antibiotics. Perhaps, the antibiotics might cause some side effects--such as allergy and so forth. Therefore, the author cannot justifiably rely on the effectiveness of antibiotics on some patients to draw any firm conclusion to embrace all patients who suffered from muscle injuries.

To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that secondary infections have relations with quick healing after muscle strain, and that the all muscle injury patients should be treated by antibiotics, because both the prerequisite and grounds of the study cited in the analysis are flawness. To strengthen the argument would have to demonstrate that how the study was designed to reveal the correlation between secondary infections and recovery time, that whether the two groups in study are comparable, and that whether this medicine can be extended to all muscle injuries. Therefore, if the statement had included the given factors mentioned above, the argument would have become more thorough and logically（logical）
用词非常好，分析的也很透彻，我要好好学习了。不过我觉得第三段分析的错误点太多，找主要的仔细分析更好