argument51 [kb9.11]第四次作业

qiuzirumengUID: 199691

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."


This argument claims that secondary infections keep some patients from healing quickly based on the results of a study of comparing two groups of patients who suffer from illness. And he/she further this conclusion to suggest that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strains should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. This conclusion has critical fallacies logically.

To begin with, the method taken in the study is not scientifically believable as described in the newsletter.  Firstly, it seems that this experiment is taken not only being different from each other by single factor. Without ensuring other factors constant, it is not safe to say that antibiotics other than other factors make the first group healed quicker. As mentioned in the newsletter, maybe the doctors rather than the medicine determines the final result since Dr. Newland specializing in sport medicine is supposed to be much more professional in curing muscle diseased than Dr. Alton who are just a general physician.  Without providing any evident that these two groups are treated equally except the medicine taken by the patients, it is hardly to believe that the study is conducted scientifically and thus the result is convincing.

Furthermore, the author mentions that the recuperation time in the first group was 40% quicker than typical patients. This argument, however, overlook the fact that the severity of muscle hurt maybe different, It is possible that patients in the first group in general just have a little hurt, which lead to the result that they get better more sooner than average. Similarly, the patients in  the second group have average recuperation time maybe not because they do not taken antibiotics but they just suffer severer hurts than the first group.

Even if the first group indeed get better than average as mentioned in the newsletter, it in fact does not support the conclusion at all. Firstly, the study focuses on the patients who suffer muscle hurts, which is apparently different from the conclusion about severe muscle strains. Additionally, it does not mention the side effect that brought by antibiotics. Without considering the negative corresponding to the positive aspect, the author is too hasty to get a scientific conclusion.

To sum up, the author's conclusion based on a dubious study and the result of the study apparently does not support the conclusion as it stands. To strengthen this argument, the author should provide direct evidences that the study is taken scientifically and make sure the other factor except medicine care is constant. Moreover, the author should also disclose the linkage between muscle strains and muscle hurts. Without considering these factors mentioned above, this argument is ridiculous at best.

[ 本帖最后由 qiuzirumeng 于 2007-8-19 11:41 编辑 ]

wuyeUID: 2348444

This argument claims that secondary infections keep some patients from healing quickly based on the results of a study of  （干掉）comparing two groups of patients who suffer from illness（应该说明具体是什么）. And he/she further this conclusion to suggest that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strains should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. This conclusion has critical fallacies logically.

To begin with, the method taken in the study is not scientifically believable as described in the newsletter.  Firstly, it seems that this experiment is taken not only being different from each other by single factor（怎么说会舒服一点呢？is not taken where there is only one factor different from each other? 好像也不舒服~建议查一下).Without ensuring other factors constantg, it is not safe to say that antibiotics other than other factors make the first group healed quicker. As mentioned in the newsletter, maybe the doctors rather than the medicine determines the final result since Dr. Newland specializing in sport medicine is supposed to be much more professional in curing muscle diseased than Dr. Alton who are just a general physician.  Without providing any evident that these two groups are treated equally except the medicine taken by the patients, it is hardly(hard/difficult) to believe that the study is conducted scientifically and thus the result is convincing.

Furthermore, the author mentions that the recuperation time in the first group was 40% quicker than typical patients. This argument, however, overlooks the fact that the severity of muscle hurt maybe different, It is possible that patients in the first group in general just have a little hurt, which lead to the result that they get better more sooner than average. Similarly, the patients in  the second group have average recuperation time maybe not because they do not taken antibiotics but they just suffer severer hurts than the first group.

Even if the first group indeed get better than average as mentioned in the newsletter, it in fact does not support the conclusion at all. Firstly, the study focuses on the patients who suffer muscle hurts, which is apparently different(我倒觉得是包含关系) from the conclusion about severe muscle strains. Additionally, it does not mention the side effect that brought by antibiotics. Without considering the negative corresponding to the positive aspect, the author is too hasty to get (draw)a scientific conclusion.

To sum up, the author's conclusion（is） based on a dubious study and the result of the study apparently does not support the conclusion as it stands. To strengthen this argument, the author should provide direct evidences that the study is taken scientifically and make sure the other factor except medicine care is constant. Moreover, the author should also disclose the linkage between muscle strains and muscle hurts. Without considering these factors mentioned above, this argument is ridiculous at best.


今天有事情，不好意思现在才评~
我今天的作业还没写的~
郁闷！

qiuzirumengUID: 199691

呵呵，谢谢修改^_^

对酒当歌UID: 2210051

This argument claimsthat secondary infections keep some patients from healing quickly based on theresults of a study of comparing two groups of patients who suffer from illness(个人感觉强调一下severemuscle strain更合适). And he/she further this conclusion to suggest that all patients whoare diagnosed with muscle strains should take antibiotics as part of theirtreatment. This conclusion has critical fallacies logically.

To begin with, the method taken in the study is not scientifically believableas described in the newsletter.  Firstly, it seems that thisexperiment is taken not only being different from each other by single factor（好观点）.Without ensuring other factors constant, it is not safe（个人感觉safe不太好）tosay that antibiotics other（rather） than other factors make the first group healedquicker. As mentioned in the newsletter, maybe the doctors rather than themedicine determines the final result since Dr. Newland specializing in sportmedicine is supposed to be much more professional in curing muscle diseasedthan Dr. Alton who are just a general physician.  Without providingany evident that these two groups are treated equally except the medicine takenby the patients, it is hardly(hard) to believe that the study is conductedscientifically and thus the result is convincing.

Furthermore, the author mentions that the recuperation time in the first groupwas 40% quicker than typical patients. This argument, however, overlook thefact that the severity of muscle hurt maybe different, It is possible thatpatients in the first group in general just have a little hurt, which lead tothe result that they get better more sooner than average. Similarly, thepatients in  the second group have average recuperation time maybenot because they do not taken antibiotics but they just suffer severer hurtsthan the first group.

Even if the first group indeed get better than average as mentioned in thenewsletter, it in fact does not support the conclusion at all. Firstly, thestudy focuses on the patients who suffer muscle hurts, which is apparentlydifferent from the conclusion about severe muscle strains. Additionally, itdoes not mention the side effect that brought by antibiotics. Withoutconsidering the negative corresponding to the positive aspect, the author istoo hasty to get a scientific conclusion.

To sum up, the author's conclusion based on a dubious study and the result ofthe study apparently does not support the conclusion as it stands. Tostrengthen this argument, the author should provide direct evidences that thestudy is taken scientifically and make sure the other factor except medicinecare is constant. Moreover, the author should also disclose the linkage betweenmuscle strains and muscle hurts. Without considering these factors mentionedabove, this argument is ridiculous at best.

竟然忘了看了，抱歉。
逻辑上没问题，表达也不错，个别小错误注意一下。
加油！


[ 本帖最后由 对酒当歌 于 2007-8-20 19:14 编辑 ]