argument51【jet】小组第四次作业

O--honeyUID: 2452493

字数:556    时间:08.2.9
The arguer wants to prove a hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain by present the result of a preliminary experiment, one group is conducted by a doctor who specializes in sports medicine by giving patients antibiotics regularly throughout the experiment, another comparison group is conducted by a general physician by giving patients sugar pills that pretend to be antibiotics. By compare the average recuperation time, he finally got the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. After a serious examination of his conclusion would reveal that how groundless that conclusion he’s made.
Firstly, the experiment simply distribute two different kinds of conductors there, one is a professor in sports medicine, another is a physician, it is not impossible that the average recuperation has something to do with the doctors, to our common sense, that if you go to hospital receiving a treatment by a doctor you don’t even trust, the recovery chance is absolutely limit, yet the arguer didn’t mention whether the patients recognized their doctors is a physician to be honest, what if they know the truth, then, with the continuous doubtness, their recuperation has been seriously affected!
Secondly, we know from the argument that in one group the patients are offered with true antibiotics, yet the other are offered with sugar pills. And then he conclude that the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain are advised to take antibiotics as their treatment, and the funny thing is that, he got this conclusion only by compare true antibiotics with sugar pills, which the former one may be called medicine while the later one can be called “food”, obviously, the food can not cure disease, it can only feed people, he take something not useful at all to be the comparison group is totally a big mistake, what if the patients who take antibiotics just get a little better but far from the degree that can be called “cured”, or what if the sugar pills anti-functioned on patients’ health. If he can offer more details, he can not conclude in such a hasty!
Thirdly, the result of the first group the arguer only pointed out “is 40 percent quicker than typically expected”. He did not give us the exact expectations while the second group he just mentioned that the average recuperation is not reduced, what if I give his expectations 10, the result of first group is 6, but the result of the second group is already 6, because the arguer did not say that the condition of patients in first group and second group are the same! In this case, the comparison has lost its meanings!
Finally, I don’t think the result of the preliminary experiment have something to do with the hypothesis while the experiment proved that the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain are advised to take antibiotics for treatment yet the hypothesis is that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain!
In sum, unless the arguer can rule out those possibilities, he can not get such a hasty conclusion! Otherwise, the hypothesis and its proves are totally irrelevant, maybe he can give another more proper proves to support!
                 

hds123523000UID: 2454889

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."

Conclusion from the author of this newsletter, that【which啊，好像that不能这样用啊】 is all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, seems to be reasonable, but at the second glance at this argument, it is beyond of conviction for three illogical factors.【句子写的不错，但是好像中心错了，应该是二次感染的理论吧】

Like any argument, one conclusion could be convinced【convincing】 only when the evidences are true and effective. In this passage, the author gave one study of two groups of patients. Hardly the preliminary result could【倒装是不是could要提前啊】 prove this hypothesis, which is that doctors suspected【既然是理论，那么这里的怀疑就用得不好】 the relationship between the secondary infections and the antibiotics on muscle strain, because the arguer told nothing about the two groups of patients, such as their age groups, sexes, or physical conditions. Beast on the first group patients might be stronger, younger, and better conditions, the latter group, of course, would spend longer time to cure their muscle strain. Even if the doctor did not provide any antibiotics, the result—40 percent quicker than typically expected—is possibly happened. Thus, the study could not support this background that the author gave in the argument, and the advice to take antibiotics as part of treatment would be taken out of consideration.

Forget the first paragraph, and imagining 【image】that almost same patients in two groups in the study, the 40 percent quicker would also be brought by other reasons but the antibiotics, such as the major of the doctors. In the first group, the Dr.(Doctor) Newland, who specializes in sports medicine, has more chance to access to muscle strain patients【怎样知道的？从常识判断？】, and that means he could be more experienced than other general physician doctors, and Dr. Alton—the second group main doctor—is exactly one of them. Because of more experience and professional knowledge, Dr. Newland can support some practices as part of treatment, which might strengthen patients’ muscle and make them cured by themselves sooner, without any antibiotics the patients would also recover 30 to 40 percent quicker【呵呵，这有点太神了吧，不过论点不错，我没有想到】. Besides, Dr. Newland, perhaps made the cure schedule【这个单词我想了很久都没记起】 more suitable to the body, thanks to his experience. To the contract, Dr. Alton could do nothing to make any difference on the result even if he supported the patients more antibiotics. This discussion claims that, antibiotic is not the only reason why the first group recuperation time on average is 40 percent quicker.【论述不错】

If the doctors’ methods in this study and 【加个both感觉好一点】the inside and outside condition of the patients are same, the 40 percent quicker of recuperation time might be result from the sugar pills, which are supported in the second group. No evidence in the argument could illustrate the sugar pills have no effect on recuperating muscle strain. And if the content of sugar in blood would delay the cure progress, the average recuperation time of second group must be longer than usual time, and sometimes the expected time is also longer than usual time, so the second group’s result is not significantly different with expected time. Meanwhile, compared with the delayed time, it is not strange 40 percent quicker, as nothing special curing method.【你这里观点很独特，但是你好像没有把题读懂啊，40%是第一组相对于标准来说，和服糖片有什么关系，难道以前的人都是靠糖片治疗？你怎么知道？而且还没有点名你要论述的中心】

From what has been discussed above, the arguer can strengthen the argument in several ways. He should provide the secondary infection percent【可以这样用哇？】 in all types of muscle strain, and one large quantity of survey would helps to make the result more believable. Addition to one result, the solution to secondary infection should be discussed more effective rather than only one study. Till all questions have been answered, the author could make a convinced conclusion.

【主要问题就在于中心错误啊】

hds123523000UID: 2454889

呵呵，不好意思，发错了

housmartUID: 2334267

写的很好啊! 赞！
我也想加入！我26号考，你什么时候考:handshake