argument51[为我所用第四次作业]

flair1031UID: 2314987

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: 542          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2008-3-26 14:41:23

The argument draws the conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the recommendation, the author point out that preliminary result of a study proves the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. In order to enhance the credibility of this assumption, the arguer also supply the evidences that the first group of patients in study being treated by a doctor specialized in sport medicine took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment and their recuperation time was 40% shorter than the other one, all of who are treated by a general physician. Nevertheless this argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the threshold of the assumption that antibiotics play a positive role during patients’ recuperation is that antibiotics are benefit for the first group patients. However, there is no data available to support any causal relationship between the regularly taking antibiotics and shorter recuperation. It's likely that other parts of the treatment play their function better than antibiotics. Contingencies, for instance, diet, outdoor sport, exposure of sunlight, and sleep can all lead to shorter recuperation time. Given the assumption above, the author also supply too vague information and detail about the treatment. What does regularly exactly mean? Once a day, twice a day, or once a week. Any conclusion at this stage is premature in absence of further explanation of using of antibiotics.

In addition, a second problem is that the two situations are not similar enough to justify the analogical deduction. Doctors specialized in different fields prefer to distinctive method of treating and naturally give patients particular advise about daily life. It is very likely that the potential differences between the two groups doctor guide two groups’ patients to different recuperation time. The limitation of knowledge about another field of physiological disease affects the patients’ confidence to the doctor and therefore also affects the result of cure. But the statistical evidence upon which the assumption relies is too vague to be informative.

What’s more, the arguer makes fails comparison between only two groups of the study and all of the patients. As we know, particular patients naturally need unique treatment. It is unwise to overlook the interior characters patients showing varied symptoms. In another word, it is possible that the effect of a certain muscle strain in a particular situation is not representative of all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. According to the common sense, an athlete who hurts his ankle when he play basketball only need a couple days’ rest, while a pedestrian who is crashed by a car in an accident need first aid as soon as possible. The ignorance in the recommendation undermines the credibility and make the argument be an unwarranted and oversimplified prediction.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make the argument solid grounded; the author would have to prove that antibiotics are also useful in other disease besides those the study concludes. Moreover I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of recommendation until the arguer can provide concrete evidence that the two groups receive equal treatment.

[ 本帖最后由 flair1031 于 2008-3-26 18:26 编辑 ]

guoshishuoUID: 2467577

The argument draws the conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the recommendation, the author point out that preliminary result of a study proves the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. In order to enhance the credibility of this assumption, the arguer also supply the evidences that the first group of patients in study being treated by a doctor specialized in sport medicine took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment and their recuperation time was 40% shorter than the other one, all of who are treated by a general physician. Nevertheless this argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.（开头感觉还是稍微简洁一点的比较好）

To begin with, the threshold of the assumption （is)that (because) antibiotics play a positive role during patients’ recuperation (is that), antibiotics are benefitial for the first group patients. However, there is no data available to support any causal relationship between the regularly taking antibiotics and shorter recuperation. It's likely that other parts of the treatment play their function better than antibiotics. Contingencies, for instance, diet, outdoor sport, exposure of sunlight, and sleep can all lead to shorter recuperation time. Given the assumption above, the author also supply too vague information and detail about the treatment. What does regularly exactly mean? Once a day, twice a day, or once a week. Any conclusion at this stage is premature in absence of further explanation of using of antibiotics.

In addition, a second problem is that the two situations are not similar enough to justify the analogical deduction. Doctors specialized in different fields prefer to distinctive method of treating and naturally give patients particular advise about daily life. It is very likely that the potential differences between the two groups' doctor guide (two groups’)their patients to different recuperation time. Moreover, The limitation of knowledge about another field of physiological disease affects the patients’ confidence to the doctor and therefore also affects the result of cure. But the statistical evidence upon which the assumption relies is too vague to be informative.

What’s more, the arguer makes fails comparison between only two groups of the study and all of the patients.(这句意思有点含糊） As we know, particular patients naturally need unique treatment. It is unwise to overlook the interior characters patients showing varied symptoms. In another word, it is possible that the effect of a certain muscle strain in a particular situation is not representative of all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. According to the common sense, an athlete who hurts his ankle when he play basketball only need a couple days’ rest, while a pedestrian who is crashed by a car in an accident need first aid as soon as possible. The ignorance in the recommendation undermines the credibility and make the argument be an unwarranted and oversimplified prediction.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make the argument solid grounded; the author would have to prove that antibiotics are also useful in other disease besides those the study concludes.（文章中好像没有论证这条吧） Moreover I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of recommendation until the arguer can provide concrete evidence that the two groups receive equal treatment.