argument51 [kb9.11]第四次作业

chineseliUID: 2366474

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: 364          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 8/18/2007 3:45:47 PM

The arguer advocate that all patients suffered muscle strain should take antibiotics to prevent secondary infections.The arguer's conclusion is made based on the study he states.The conclusion sounds reasonable at first look,but further discussion below will show you it is logically flawed.

To begin with, it is too hatsy to draw conclusion from the study without further details.  The study shows the group of patients who take antibiotics throughout their treatment recuperated much quicker than they were typically expected, while the recuperation time of another group which was not given antibiotics was not significantly reduced.Obviously, the statistic data of the study failed to differentiate the severities of the patient's injuries. It is entirely possible that the second group of patients which were not given antibiotics suffered more serious injuries than the other group, and it would be normal that the second group needs more time on average to recover.So without more details of the study , the statistic data cannot be used as an evidence to the arguer's conclusion.

Furthermore, if further information of the statistic is given ,the study itself may also flawed.The first group was treated by a doctor who specialized in sports medicine while the second group was treated by a general physician. Usually, a sports medicine specialized doctor would have more experience in curing the sports injuries like muscle injuries than a general physician, so the the first group of patients might have be treated better and that lead to the quicker recovery. Thus, the result of the study is unreliable.

Finally, the arguer falsely suggests all patients who suffered muscle strain should take antibiotics. It may be true that in certain condition, the heavily injured patients need to take antibiotics to prevent infections, but we cannot take it too far to all conditions.Antibiotics should be used only if the patients are in the danger of infections.If a patient only  silightly strains his muscle,several days in bed will be enough to recover and antibiotics are totally redundant.So the arguer's suggestion is problematic.

In sum, the arguer's conclusion lacks credibility. To make his conclusion persuasive ,he must give us more information about the study of treatment and should not further his suggestion to all muscle strain patients.

perfumedewUID: 2381489

The arguer advocate(s) that all patients suffered(suffering) muscle strain should take antibiotics to prevent secondary infections.The arguer's conclusion is made based on the study he states.The conclusion sounds reasonable at first look,but further discussion below will show you it is logically flawed.

To begin with, it is too hatsy to draw conclusion from the study without further details.  The study shows the group of patients who take antibiotics throughout their treatment recuperated much quicker than they were typically expected, while the recuperation time of another group which was not given antibiotics was not significantly reduced.Obviously, the statistic data of the study failed to differentiate the severities(我想the level更好) of the patient's injuries. It is entirely possible that the second group of patients which were not given antibiotics suffered more serious injuries than the other group, and it would be normal that the second group needs more time on average to recover.So without more details of the study , the statistic data cannot be used as an evidence to the arguer's conclusion.

Furthermore, if further information of the statistic is given ,the study itself may (be) also flawed.The first group was treated by a doctor who specialized in sports medicine while the second group was treated by a general physician. Usually, a sports medicine specialized doctor would have more experience in curing the sports injuries like muscle injuries than a general physician, so the the first group of patients might have be treated better and that lead to the quicker recovery. Thus, the result of the study is unreliable.

Finally, the arguer falsely suggests all patients who suffered muscle strain should take antibiotics. It may be true that in certain condition, the heavily injured patients need to take antibiotics to prevent infections, but we cannot take it too far to all conditions.Antibiotics should be used only if the patients are in the danger of infections.If a patient only  silightly(slightly) strains his muscle,several days in bed will be enough to recover and antibiotics are totally redundant.So the arguer's suggestion is problematic.

In sum, the arguer's conclusion lacks credibility. To make his conclusion persuasive ,he must give us more information about the study of treatment and should not further(词不错) his suggestion to all muscle strain patients.


恩不错，比我写的强多了