argument51【老兵小组】

wy86917UID: 2335014

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: 298          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-2-10 下午 11:43:59

The author, citing the results of two groups of patients, recommends that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, the unsound assumption the author has made and the lack of key details about the controls lead such argument unbelivable.（unbelievable）

First of all, the author assumes that secondary infections would happen on patients with muscle strain, which lends a uncredible(incredible) support to the final advise. As the author mentioned above, the antibiotic is useful to secondary infections, especially the severe muscle strain cases. However, there is no evidences or facts referring the relationship between the healing effect of antibiotic (加 to secondary infections )and common muscle strain. We may assume that the effect may be not so strong as to secondary infections. Or antibiotic may have some side effects which damage the patients' health. That is why doctors only use them on the condition of severe muscle strain and the require of healing quickly. If so, then the conclusion would be useless and misguide the patients to a wrong-head(这词用的对不对啊--！！！) treatment.

Secondly, even there is no difference between first and second treatment , the controls the author cited lend a incredible support to the hypothesis, for the reasons about the doctors and groups. On the one hand, perhaps the doctor specializing in sports medicine know more about how to healing quickly--like advices about the regulation sleep and the proper cooking matches. What is more, the professional identify gives his patients more confidence which may accelerate the speed of healing ,while considering the psychological enfluence(influence) on physical situation. On the contrary, the general physician, may lack such knowledge and only conform to the affording of antibiotics, which is sugar in fact. On the other hand,  the background and health condition before the strain of two groups are unknown. We may assume that the first group consist of young and strong boys who exercise daily while the second are constituted by the old. Then the result is of course that the first heal faster., for the stronger base of the young. The results of controls are only convincing on the condition that the patients--no matter in either group--have the same background of health and get the same doctor to direct the treatment. At best they get the entirely same service from nuises(nurses) which make smooth the patients’ feeling thus the psychology would not affect the physical healing.

In sum, to better support the recommendation, the author should make a clear bound between treatments of various sequence. Moreover, the ensure about the same fators(factors)--in exception of the antibiotic and sugar pills--of the patients is necessary to convince the  final advice.

感觉自己还是时间没有太分配好，写试验对照组那边写的没完全展开
另外就是大家帮着看看我这样的段内论证够不够啊，谢谢