Argument51 加速度小组第一次作业

xiaoxiao022UID: 2293675

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."

In this argument, the speaker recommends all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics in their treatment period. To support this advice, preliminary results of a study has been included, that is the patients treated with antibiotics by Dr.Newland recuperate 40 percent quicker than typically expected, while those without antibiotics by Dr. Alton cost no less time than expected. According to the study result, the speaker's conclusion seems apparently reasonable; however, there are some unconvincing assumptions making the argumentation far less persuasive.

Firstly, the speaker mentions the two groups leaded by different doctors, Dr. Newland who specialized in sports medicine, and Dr. Alton, a general physician. Just here it shows a remarkable ignorance that the background and expertise of the two doctors are probably different. It is quite possible that Dr. Newland has more clinical experience about training muscle strain, and uses some other kind of treatment method such as kneading or appropriate exercise instruction accompanying the recovery. On the country, Dr. Alton may be unfamiliar with or less conversant to this treatment. Therefore, the mere result of the study might be mainly determined by doctors’ ability rather than whether antibiotics has been used.

Secondly, another assumption in the study sounds not as reasonable as it stands, that patients in two groups are totally on the same health condition. In the study above there is not any information indicating the patients are of the exact similarity, whereas from the common sense, if one group is mainly made of youngsters and the control one made of elder, the recuperation time can be different apparently, let alone the patients with different medical records about muscle illness before. Without providing sufficient relevant information of the patients’ individual conditions, the conclusion made by the speaker is still open to doubt.

Moreover, the speaker takes no more consideration about such medicine factors as side-effect, and patients’ adaptability to the medicine. Supposing that kind of antibiotics would develop sensitiveness on some people, the suggestion all patients take antibiotics seems not so reasonable. Besides, we have no further data about the percentage of side-effect, in order to persuade the public the speaker should add additional instruction about the medicine to the argument, otherwise, any usage of antibiotics on any subject is perilous.

In sum, the speaker cites a study but without sufficient information to support the underlying assumptions, which only leads to an unconvincing conclusion. To strengthen the persuasion of the argument, he/she is supposed to append extra essential explanations, such as the two doctors have applied the precisely same treatment to patients, as well as the patients’ personal health condition do not make any difference in treating muscle strain.

[ 本帖最后由 xiaoxiao022 于 2008-1-17 20:04 编辑 ]

nun318UID: 2205752

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."

In this argument, the speaker recommends all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics in their treatment period. To support this advice, preliminary results of a study has been included, that is the patients treated with antibiotics by Dr.Newland recuperate 40 percent quicker than typically expected, while those without antibiotics by Dr. Alton cost no less time than expected. According to the study result, the speaker's conclusion seems apparently reasonable; however, there are some unconvincing assumptions making the argumentation far less persuasive.

Firstly, the speaker mentions the two groups leaded by different doctors, Dr. Newland who specialized in sports medicine, and Dr. Alton, a general physician. Just here it shows a remarkable ignorance that the background and expertise of the two doctors are probably different. It is quite possible that Dr. Newland has more clinical experience about training muscle strain, and uses some other kind of treatment method such as kneading or appropriate exercise instruction accompanying(during) the recovery. On the country, Dr. Alton may be unfamiliar with or less conversant to this treatment. Therefore, the mere result of the study might be mainly determined by doctors’ ability rather than whether antibiotics has been used.

Secondly, another assumption in the study sounds not as reasonable as it stands, 移(that patients in two groups are totally on the same health condition)到assumption 之后. In the study above there is not any information indicating the patients are of the exact similarity, whereas from the common sense, if one group is mainly made of youngsters and the control one made of elder, the recuperation time can be different apparently, let alone the patients with different medical records about muscle illness before. Without providing sufficient relevant information of the patients’ individual conditions, the conclusion made by the speaker is still open to doubt.

Moreover, the speaker takes no more consideration about such medicine factors as side-effect, and patients’ adaptability to the medicine. Supposing that kind of antibiotics would develop sensitiveness(过敏我不知道这样对不对待我查一查) on some people, the suggestion all patients take antibiotics seems not so reasonable. Besides, we have no further data about the percentage of side-effect, in order to persuade the public the speaker should add additional instruction about the medicine to the argument, otherwise, any usage of antibiotics on any subject is perilous.

In sum, the speaker cites a study but(去掉but) without sufficient information to support the underlying assumptions, which only leads to an unconvincing conclusion. To strengthen the persuasion of the argument, he/she is supposed to append extra essential explanations, such as the two doctors have applied the precisely same treatment to patients, as well as the patients’ personal health condition do not make any difference in treating muscle strain.