Argument51

xsr6064UID：2312664

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."


Words : 389            Time :　45min

提纲：
Para 1 .描述问题
Para 2 .问题1 ：例子与要讨论的问题没有关系。
Para 3 .问题2 ：没有提供病人的准确信息。
Para 4 .问题3 ：数据问题。
Para 5 .结论。


In this medical newsletter, the author claim that the hypothesis which supposes that secondary infection may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain has been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. However, I find this argument suspicious in several respects.

The first, may be the most serious, problems is that the author may use an invalid evidence to sustain his argument. Consider the author’s aim at the beginning of the newsletter. We can see that what he wants to prove is that whether the secondary infections would influence some patients’ recovering after severe muscle strain. But in the successive statement, the evidence used by the author is two experiments of examining the function of antibiotics in the treatment of muscle injuries, which is an entirely irrelevant medical problem with what the author want to discuss. For this problem, the author can not draw any conclusion on the secondary infections’ influence on patients. Thus the whole passage seems to be meaningless.

Secondly, the author fails to rule out the possibility that factors other than antibiotics enabled the first group of patients to recover more quickly on average. It is possible that most of the first group of patients are stronger than the other group’s ones so that they can recover more quickly, or that the climate of the place where first group lived is more helpful for recovering. Therefore, unless the author can provide more detail information about all the patients, I can not be convinced that the antibiotic has actual function for the muscle injuries.

Thirdly, the data of the two experiments is not statistically reliable. The author does not give us the accurate number of the participated patients of these experiments, and a too small quantity of them may lead the consequence unreliable. Besides, if the process of selecting the patients is not random, the consequence would also be problematic. So we have reasons to doubt the author’s conclusion until he can provide clearer data.

In sum, the author’s conclusion is not convinced and even confused, because the author use an invalid evidence to support his argument, and in the process of discussing the two experiments he does not give accurate information of two groups of patients. He also does not give clear numbers of the participators.

[ 本帖最后由 xsr6064 于 2007-8-2 16:43 编辑 ]

SavileRowUID：2284947

In this medical newsletter, the author claim(claims？) that the hypothesis which supposes that secondary infection may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain has been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. However, I find this argument suspicious in several respects.
我觉得arguer的主要结论是要推广抗生素在肌肉扭伤治疗过程中的使用。基于这个结论，你的第一个批驳点就不能成为批驳点了。如果结论是次感染有影响，这段话举一个完全无关的例子来给我们驳斥，是不是有点失衡？这个只是我个人看法，仅供参考。

The first, may be（and maybe好些？） the most serious, problems is that the author may use an invalid evidence to sustain his argument. Consider the author’s aim at the beginning of the newsletter. We can see that what he wants to prove is that whether the secondary infections would influence some patients’ recovering after severe muscle strain. But in the successive statement, the evidence used by the author is two experiments of examining the function of antibiotics in the treatment of muscle injuries, which is an entirely irrelevant medical problem with what the author want to discuss. For this problem, the author can not draw any conclusion on the secondary infections’ influence on patients. Thus the whole passage seems to be meaningless.

Secondly, the author fails to rule out the possibility that factors other than antibiotics enabled the first group of patients to recover more quickly on average. It is possible that most of the first group of patients are stronger than the other group’s ones so that they can recover more quickly, or that the climate of the place where first group lived is more helpful for recovering. Therefore, unless the author can provide more detail information about all the patients, I can not be convinced that the antibiotic has actual function for the muscle injuries.
这段很精彩，对其他影响康复的因素不仅仅作了列举，还有深入的论述。

Thirdly, the data of the two experiments is not statistically reliable. The author does not give us the accurate number of the participated patients of these experiments, and a too small quantity of them may lead the consequence unreliable.（为什么使结果不可靠，可以多说一句或者就用一个短语就可以，要提供细节才能取胜） Besides, if the process of selecting the patients is not random, the consequence would also be problematic.(原因同上，为什么会有问题，可以多说一句) So we have reasons to doubt the author’s conclusion until he can provide clearer data.

In sum, the author’s conclusion is not convinced and even confused, because the author use an invalid evidence to support his argument, and in the process of discussing the two experiments he does not give accurate information of two groups of patients. He also does not give clear numbers of the participators.

总体上我觉得挺好，但是我觉得漏掉了一个major flaw不应该，就是没有说到两组医生的差异造成康复时间差异。既然已经提到了病人差异，自然而然不应该漏这点。小错可以不挑，但是明显的错没有挑出来在判分时候会吃亏

[ 本帖最后由 SavileRow 于 2007-8-2 18:26 编辑 ]

xsr6064UID：2312664

非常细致的修改，谢谢了

这篇本来我也很奇怪，感决论据与作者开始的论点完全不是一回事，所以论述的重心发生了偏移。也许真的二次感染的影响与治疗肌肉拉上之间真的有内在的联系。

其他方面的问题已经注意到，力求以后避免。