ARGUMENT51 第四次作业

phoenixlwUID: 2382912

题目：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."
字数：361          用时：0:30:00         

The author asserts that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment to shorten the recuperation time. To support this assertion, the author cites a study, which is conducted by two different doctors, between two groups of patients whose recuperation time is sharply distinguished. However, although the argument seems logical at first glance, yet it has a series of flaws which render it wholly unpersuasive.

Foremost, the validity of the study is open to doubt. Firstly, the author fails to offer the number of each groups of patients. If the sample of the study is not so sufficient in size, then the result might not be representative. Secondly, also the author does not show the detailed information on the health status, age constitute, and gender distinctions of the each group of patients. For instance, if the patients of the first group are healthier than those of the second groups, surely the first group's average recuperation time will be shorter than that of the second group. Besides, it is highly possible that the recuperation time of the young is shorter than the old naturally, and if first group is constitute of mostly the young while the most of the second group are the old, then the comparison on the recuperation tine between them is substantially unfair. Additionally, maybe the male and female have a different recuperation time in nature, which the author does not mentions, too. Therefore, unless the author takes these factors, which could influence the result significantly, the result of study is vulnerable.
   

Besides, the author also commits a fallacy of the incomplete comparison for the distinctions of the doctors also contribute to the result of the study. Since the first doctor specializes in sports medicine while the second doctor is just a general physician, therefore the therapies of the two groups are different basically, and therefore the recuperation condition will be different. It is high possible the first doctor is better at the treatment on this muscle strain than the second one, and thus the personnel configuration of two groups are unscientific and illogical. Thus, the comparison between the results of the two groups is unscientific and ineffective.  

Finally, even though the result of the study is convincing, yet the author fails to take the cost and the side-effect of the antibiotics into account. Maybe the antibiotics have high cost and then there might be expensive price. If so, the majority of the patients might still suffer from a long recuperation time because they could not afford this treatment. Moreover, if the antibiotics have some side-effects, then the patients might become more severe resulting from the destruction of human's organizations and cells caused by the antibiotics. Without ruling out these two and other scenarios, the author cannot conclude confidently that the antibiotics are benefit for this treatment.

In sum, the argument is not convincing as its flaws above. To strengthen this argument, the author should prove the validity of the study, which including two facets of the patients and the doctors. Furthermore, the author also should take the cost and side-effect of the antibiotics into consideration.

goldzincUID: 2378390

The author asserts that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment to shorten the recuperation time. To support this assertion, the author cites a study, which is conducted by two different doctors, between two groups of patients whose recuperation time is sharply distinguished.(原文没有比较两组病人的恢复时间，而是说前一组的恢复时间比预期的短而后一组没变) However, although the argument seems logical at first glance, yet it has a series of flaws which render it wholly unpersuasive (as it stands你忘了写了吧 呵呵).

Foremost, the validity of the study is open to doubt. Firstly, the author fails to offer the number of each group of patients. If the sample of the study is not so sufficient in size, then the result might not be representative. Secondly, also the author does not show the detailed information on the health status, age constitute, and gender distinctions of the each group of patients. For instance, if the patients of the first group are healthier than those of the second groups, surely the first group's average recuperation time will be shorter than that of the second group. Besides, it is highly possible that the recuperation time of the young is shorter than the old naturally, and if first group is constitute of mostly the young while the most of the second group are the old, then the comparison on the recuperation tine between them is substantially unfair. Additionally, maybe the male and female have a different recuperation time in nature, which the author does not mentions, too. Therefore, unless the author takes these factors, which could influence the result significantly, the result of study is vulnerable. (还是上面那个问题，注意原文中作者比较的对象)
原文中不是比较的两组病人的恢复时间，而是说前一组的恢复时间比预期的短而后一组没变。这个所谓的预期时间应该是考虑到两组病人具体情况而预期的——当然，你也可以质疑这个预期时间到底有没有考虑过具体情况或者两个不同的医生预期方法一致不一致。而你的这些证据比较适合于证明他最后所说的all patients都该用抗生素是草率推广因为没有考虑到patients之间的区别。

Besides, the author also commits a fallacy of the incomplete comparison for the distinctions of the doctors also contribute to the result of the study. Since the first doctor specializes in sports medicine while the second doctor is just a general physician, therefore the therapies of the two groups are different basically, and therefore the recuperation condition will be different. It is high possible the first doctor is better at the treatment on this muscle strain than the second one, and thus the personnel configuration of two groups are unscientific and illogical. Thus, the comparison between the results of the two groups is unscientific and ineffective.  
Finally, even though the result of the study is convincing, yet the author fails to take the cost and the side-effect of the antibiotics into account. Maybe the antibiotics have high cost and then there might be expensive price(说maybe antibiotics is very expensive就行了). If so, the majority of the patients might still suffer from a long recuperation time because they could not afford this treatment. Moreover, if the antibiotics have some side-effects, then the patients might become more severe resulting from the destruction of human's organizations and cells caused by the antibiotics. Without ruling out these two and other scenarios, the author cannot conclude confidently that the antibiotics are benefit for this treatment.

In sum, the argument is not convincing as its flaws above. To strengthen this argument, the author should prove the validity of the study, which including two facets of the patients and the doctors. Furthermore, the author also should take the cost and side-effect of the antibiotics into consideration.

第二段中存在对原题的一点误解，后两端都很好。

phoenixlwUID: 2382912

恩 谢谢 确实将recuperation time 直接比较不大好~~是个问题