Argument51【7\8\9\10】 7.19(第一次作业) BY warboy

warboyUID: 2444492

51.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 medical newsletter the editor attempt to draw a safety conclusion about the patients who are suffering a muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the editor of newsletter cite a seemly reasonable experiment to illustrate that the patient who took an antibiotics is more quickly than the others not. Close scrutiny of this deducing process, however, disclose that there is some flaws to make the conclusion unconvincing.

The major problem with the argument is that the experiment does do provide the detail about whether the two groups’ therapy is same except taking antibiotics. Perhaps the first groups were treated by a new medical method, which is effective and efficient for muscle strain. However, the second groups did not accept the method, that directly contribute to their cure time is obviously longer than the first. And because the two groups were administrated by two doctors, they may be lake of efficient communication with each other. That entirely perhaps lead the result that One of doctors adopts a new type of medication for his patients, which reduce or increase the cure time, but other didn’t. If so, the reasoning that antibiotics primarily serves to cure muscle strain can not be proved.

Another point worth consider is that the antibiotics side-effect is not mentioned by the newsletter editor, without this information the editor did not convince me that antibiotic is safe for the patient. It is totally possible that the first groups, due to taking the exorbitant amount of antibiotics, have to suffer the pain form the antibiotics side-effect. And one research having been done illustrate that the assimilation of antibiotics in human body will lead the drug-fast result, in the word, the virus would be adapt the efficacy of a certain kind of antibiotics which was long-term used and patients have to choose other kind of antibiotics for their therapy. Given this side-effect caused by antibiotics may be more serious than muscle strain, the auger’s suggestion, just because of muscle strain, not show any responsibility for the patients and threaten safety of the patients.

Before I draw a conclusion, it is necessary to point that even if the experiment is tenable and justifiable and the antibiotics is less side-effect, view of the high price of antibotics, the auger still conclude that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Entirely possible there is a certain kind of medication or method, which is much cheaper and more efficient than antibiotics. Without ruling out this possible, the editor can not convince me that to take antibiotic pills is the best and only choice for the patients who are suffering muscle strain.

In sum, the editor’s suggestion is not credible, at least based on the paper(article) in the medical newsletter. Rather than relying solely on the experiment, the editor should provide more direct proof that the antibiotics absolute the only choice for the patient. To better suppose this suggestion, the editor should provide the following fact: (1) the experiment is tenable, especially taking antibiotics is only variance of two groups. (2)taking antibiotics own the least side-effect.(3) this medication is cheapest in all other methods and medications. Before the auger provides those facts, this suggestion is unconvincing。

[ 本帖最后由 warboy 于 2008-7-20 20:40 编辑 ]

sstonehuUID: 2379503

"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 medical newsletter the editor attempt to draw a safety conclusion about the patients who are suffering a muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support (it) the editor of newsletter cite a seemly reasonable experiment to illustrate that the patient who took an antibiotics is more quickly than the others not. Close scrutiny of this deducing process, however, disclose that there is some flaws to make the conclusion unconvincing. (赞)The major problem with the argument is that the experiment does do provide the detail about whether the two groups’ therapy is same except taking antibiotics. Perhaps the first groups were treated by a new medical method, which is effective and efficient for muscle strain. However, the second groups did not accept the method, that directly contribute to their cure time is obviously longer than the first. And because the two groups were administrated by two doctors, they may be lake of efficient communication with each other. That entirely perhaps lead the result that One（one） of doctors adopts a new type of medication for his patients, which reduce or increase the cure time, but other didn’t. If so, the reasoning that antibiotics primarily serves to cure muscle strain cannot be proved.Another point worth consider is that the antibiotics side-effect is not mentioned by the newsletter editor, without this information the editor did not convince me that antibiotic is safe for the patient. It is totally possible that the first groups, due to taking the exorbitant amount of antibiotics, have to suffer the pain form the antibiotics side-effect. And one research having been done illustrate that the assimilation of antibiotics in human body will lead the drug-fast result, in the word, the virus would be adapt the efficacy of a certain kind of antibiotics which was long-term used and patients have to choose other kind of antibiotics for their therapy. Given this side-effect caused by antibiotics may be more serious than muscle strain, the auger’s suggestion, just because of muscle strain, did not show any responsibility for the patients and threaten safety of the patients.Before I draw a conclusion, it is necessary to point that even if the experiment is tenable and justifiable and the antibiotics is less side-effect, view of the high price of antibiotics (antibiotics), the auger still conclude that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Entirely possible there is a certain kind of medication or method, which is much cheaper and more efficient than antibiotics. Without ruling out this possible, the editor cannot convince me that to take antibiotic pills is the best and only choice for the patients who are suffering muscle strain.In sum, the editor’s suggestion is not credible, at least based on the paper(article) in the medical newsletter. Rather than relying solely on the experiment, the editor should provide more direct proof that the antibiotics absolute the only choice for the patient. To better suppose this suggestion, the editor should provide the following fact: (1) the experiment is tenable, especially taking antibiotics is only variance of two groups. (2)taking antibiotics own the least side-effect.(3) this medication is cheapest in all other methods and medications. Before the auger provides those facts, this suggestion is unconvincing。
论述层层递进，结构很清晰。