argument51 【areo组】

katu1204UID: 2355887

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."

MY ANSWER:
In the medical newsletter, the author recommends that all patients with muscle strain would be suggested to treat with antibiotics. To support this recommendation, the author cites a study, which seems substantial, to prove the assumption that secondary infections keep some patients with severe muscle strain from healing quickly. Careful examination of this newsletter, however, reveals that the study cannot lend substantial support to the hypothesis, and that there are some flaws in reasoning.
There are three reasons to undermine the author’s assertion that the study cited prove the hypothesis of secondary infections delaying the time of recovering from severe muscle strain.

First, the research cannot prove that antibiotics take effects in reducing the patient's average recuperation time, others reasons could cause the result. And two reasons are given below: (1). The researchers did not ensure the condition, whether antibiotics were taken by patients or not, was the only difference between the two groups. In the study, the doctors supervising the groups were not the same one, the doctors also specialize in different field. So, perhaps all these differences between the doctors can contribute to the different results of recuperation time. For example, Dr .Newland may has more experiences in helping this specific kind of patients to recover, but Dr. Alton only has little experience in this kind of treatment. In that case, Dr. Newland was entirely likely to give better advices to the patients and help them recover faster. (2). Many conditions about the tow groups are vague, the research reveals no exact detail about the level of muscle injure in the two groups. Maybe the first group's patients initially got lighter injuries, so they certainly require less time for healing. Other conditions, such as the physical conditions of the patients (stronger people may get recovery faster), the exact number of people in each age-range, all could affect the result. In short, as the reasons above, I can't approve the conclusion that antibiotics can decrease the time of recovering.

Farther more, there is no evidence that can show that all patient got “severe” injury. As mentioned above, the study has no date about the level of muscle injure, lacing such data it means no evidence to prove that the patients all get "severe" muscle strain, so the hypothesis that secondary infections hold back the process of healing after "severe" muscle strain cannot be sustained.

Thirdly, even if the study cogently proves the antibiotics' positive effect on the treatment of severe muscle strain, there is no research or study proving that antibiotics can prevent patients from secondary infections. Perhaps few patient suffered the secondary infections and some component in the antibiotics help to curing the injury directly. So the hypothesis about secondary infection cannot be testified.

Even if the study rule out the three flaws above and prove that the study supports the hypothesis, it’s still too haste to recommend that all patients with muscle strain should treat with antibiotics. Perhaps, the treatment not suitable for all patient, the medicine may have side-effect, or some patients may be allergic, or maybe only patients with severe injury are fitting for the measure. To support the author’s suggestion, more researches need to be taken to testify the antibiotics’ curative effect to this injury.

liruixinsnakeUID: 2373729

In the medical newsletter, the author recommends that all patients with muscle strain would be suggested to treat with antibiotics. To support this recommendation, the author cites a study, which seems substantial to prove the assumption that secondary infections keep some patients with severe muscle strain from healing quickly. Careful examination of this newsletter, however, reveals that the study cannot lend substantial support to the hypothesis, and that there are some flaws in reasoning.
There are three reasons to undermine the author’s assertion that the study cited prove the hypothesis of secondary infections delaying the time of recovering from severe muscle strain.

First, the research cannot prove that antibiotics take effects in reducing the patient's average recuperation time, others reasons could cause the result. And two reasons are given below: (1). The researchers did not ensure the condition, whether antibiotics were taken by patients or not, was the only difference between the two groups. In the study, the doctors supervising the groups were not the same one, the doctors also specialize in different field. So, perhaps all these differences between the doctors can contribute to the different results of recuperation time. For example, Dr .Newland may has more experiences in helping this specific kind of patients to recover, but Dr. Alton only has little experience in this kind of treatment. In that case, Dr. Newland was entirely likely to give better advices to the patients and help them recover faster. (2). Many conditions about the tow groups are vague, the research reveals no exact detail about the level of muscle injure in the two groups. Maybe the first group's patients initially got lighter injuries, so they certainly require less time for healing. Other conditions, such as the physical conditions of the patients (stronger people may get recovery faster), the exact number of people in each age-range, all could affect the result. In short, as the reasons above, I can't approve the conclusion that antibiotics can decrease the time of recovering.
（论证很充分，这一段值得发扬）

Farther more, there is no evidence that （删除）can show that all patient got “severe” injury. As mentioned above, the study has no date about the level of muscle injure, lacing such data it means no evidence to prove that the patients all get "severe" muscle strain, so the hypothesis that secondary infections hold back the process of healing after "severe" muscle strain cannot be sustained.
（对患者的严重性进行攻击）

Thirdly, even if the study cogently proves the antibiotics' positive effect on the treatment of severe muscle strain, there is no research or study proving that antibiotics can prevent patients from secondary infections. Perhaps few patient suffered the secondary infections and some component in the antibiotics help to curing the injury directly. So the hypothesis about secondary infection cannot be testified.
（对药物本身的作用进行质疑）

Even if the study rule out the three flaws above and prove that the study supports the hypothesis, it’s still too haste to recommend that all patients with muscle strain should treat with antibiotics. Perhaps, the treatment not suitable for all patient, the medicine may have side-effect, or some patients may be allergic, or maybe only patients with severe injury are fitting for the measure. To support the author’s suggestion, more researches need to be taken to testify the antibiotics’ curative effect to this injury.（严谨充分）

全篇逻辑极其严密论证很充分非常好的文章
值得我们学习

barretshaoUID: 2449682

In the medical newsletter, the author recommends that all patients with muscle strain would be suggested to treat with antibiotics. To support this recommendation, the author cites a study, which seems substantial, to prove the assumption that secondary infections keep some patients with severe muscle strain from healing quickly. Careful examination of this newsletter, however, reveals that the study cannot lend substantial support to the hypothesis, and that there are some flaws in reasoning.
There are three reasons to undermine the author’s assertion that the study cited prove the hypothesis of secondary infections delaying the time of recovering from severe muscle strain.

First, the research cannot prove that antibiotics take effects in reducing the patient's average recuperation time, others reasons could cause the result. And two reasons are given below: (1). The researchers did not ensure the condition, whether antibiotics were taken by patients or not, was the only difference between the two groups. In the study, the doctors supervising the groups were not the same one, the doctors also specialize in different field（要用复数吧？）. So, perhaps all these differences between the doctors can contribute to the different results of recuperation time. For example, Dr .Newland may has more experiences in helping this specific kind of patients to recover, but Dr. Alton only has little experience in this kind of treatment. In that case, Dr. Newland was entirely likely to give better advices to the patients and help them recover faster. (2). Many conditions about the tow groups are vague, the research reveals no exact detail about the level of muscle injure in the two groups. Maybe the first group's patients initially got lighter injuries, so they certainly require less time for healing. Other conditions, such as the physical conditions of the patients (stronger people may get recovery faster), the exact number of people in each age-range, all could affect the result. In short, as the reasons above, I can't approve the conclusion that antibiotics can decrease the time of recovering.

Further more, there is no evidence that can show that all patient（复数）got “severe” injury. As mentioned above, the study has no date about the level of muscle injure, lacing such data it means no evidence to prove that the patients all get "severe" muscle strain, so the hypothesis that secondary infections hold back the process of healing after "severe" muscle strain cannot be sustained.

Thirdly, even if the study cogently proves the antibiotics' positive effect on the treatment of severe muscle strain, there is no research or study proving that antibiotics can prevent patients from secondary infections. Perhaps few patient suffered the secondary infections and some component（复数） in the antibiotics help to curing the injury directly. So the hypothesis about secondary infection cannot be testified.

Even if the study rule out the three flaws above and prove that the study supports the hypothesis, it’s still too haste to recommend that all patients with muscle strain should treat with antibiotics. Perhaps, the treatment not suitable for all patient, the medicine may have side-effect, or some patients may be allergic, or maybe only patients with severe injury are fitting for the measure. To support the author’s suggestion, more researches need to be taken to testify the antibiotics’ curative effect to this injury.
文章写的很好啊。只有一点复数的小错误。。。加油！！