agrument51【challenge yourself小组】第5次作业ＢＹ小火龙３３

小火龙33UID: 2448175

　　The arguer in the medical newsletter recommends that all patients with muscle strain should be suggested to take antibiotics as adjuvant therapy. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites the result of an experiment on two groups of patients diagnosed with muscle strain that people who took antibiotics regularly recover much more quickly. However, a close scrutiny of the facts reveals that they do not lend any credible support to the recommendation.
　　To begin with, the arguer falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would suffer secondary infections. However, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. In addition, the arguer assumes that the shorter the average recuperation time, the better the treatment. But the recuperation time is probably not a good indicator of the treatment, which may includes the condition of recovery and whether there is any sequela. Failing to provide any evidence to support the assumption, I will remain unconvinced of the conclusion the arguer draws
　　Secondly, the validity of the survey is doubtful. From the experiment cited in the argument, we find no evidence to prove that the two groups of patients are representative to reflect the general situation of patients with muscle strain. It is entirely possible that patients of the first group are the old or women with relatively weaker body condition by contrast to the young or men in the second group. Besides, we have good reasons to doubt whether the patients studied constitute a sufficiently large sample to represent the overall patients. In short, lacking information about the number of patients studied and the their ages, gender and physical characteristics, it is impossible to assess the validity of the results.
　　Thirdly, no evidence has been offered to support the claim that it is the antibiotic that shorten the recuperation time. The level and experience of doctors is also an important contributing factor of the recovery. Given that Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine while Dr. Alton is a general physician and experts of sports medicine is better skilled in treating muscle strain than general physician in most cases. Perhaps it is some regular exercise advised by Dr. Newland or some other auxiliary treatment rather than the antibiotics that works. Moreover, it is entirely possible that sugar pills taken by patients of the second group do harm to the recovery and will extend the recuperation time. Without ruling out there possibilities, I remain unconvinced that it is the antibiotics that attributes to the recovery.
　　Finally, even if the antibiotics actually works, it is unreasonable to recommend that the antibiotics should be used for all patients with muscle strain. Despite killing bacteria and preventing infection, the antibiotics can bring many problems such as side effects, not to mention that a considerable number of people are allergic to antibiotics. Without a comprehensive analysis about the antibiotics, the arguer cannot make the recommendation.
　　In sum, the arguer’s conclusion is unconvincing as it stands, since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to it. To bolster the conclusion, the arguer should give the evidence to prove that antibiotics can shorten the recuperation time under the same conditions including the doctor of the same level, the patients of the same body condition and the therapy. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know the percentage of the secondary infections of the patients diagnosed with muscle strain.
.




[ 本帖最后由 小火龙33 于 2008-8-1 23:06 编辑 ]

sabrinabaobaoUID: 2515866

The arguer in the medical newsletter recommends that all patients with muscle strain should be suggested to take antibiotics as adjuvant therapy. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites the result of an experiment on two groups of patients diagnosed with muscle strain that people who took antibiotics regularly recover much more quickly. However, a close scrutiny of the facts reveals that they do not lend any credible support to the recommendation.
　　To begin with, the arguer falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would suffer secondary infections. However, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. In addition, the arguer assumes that the shorter the average recuperation time, the better the treatment. But the recuperation time is probably not a good indicator of the treatment, which may includes the condition of recovery and whether there is any sequela. Failing to provide any evidence to support the assumption, I will remain unconvinced of the conclusion the arguer draws
　　Secondly, the validity of the survey is doubtful. From the experiment cited in the argument, we find no evidence to prove that the two groups of patients are representative to reflect the general situation of patients with muscle strain. It is entirely possible that patients of the first group are the old or women with relatively weaker body condition by contrast to the young or men in the second group. ( 是不是说反了？应该是第一组都是年轻人吧)Besides, we have good reasons to doubt whether the patients studied constitute a sufficiently large sample to represent the overall patients. In short, lacking information about the number of patients studied and the their ages, gender and physical characteristics, it is impossible to assess the validity of the results.
　　Thirdly, no evidence has been offered to support the claim that it is the antibiotic that shortenS the recuperation time. The level and experience of doctors is also an important contributing factor of the recovery. Given that Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine while Dr. Alton is a general physician and experts of sports medicine is better skilled in treating muscle strain than general physician in most cases. Perhaps it is some regular exercise advised by Dr. Newland or some other auxiliary treatment rather than the antibiotics that works. Moreover, it is entirely possible that sugar pills taken by patients of the second group do harm to the recovery and will extend the recuperation time. Without ruling out there possibilities, I remain unconvinced that it is the antibiotics that attributes to the recovery.
　　Finally, even if the antibiotics actually work, it is unreasonable to recommend that the antibiotics should be used for all patients with muscle strain. Despite killing bacteria and preventing infection, the antibiotics can bring many problems such as side effects, not to mention that a considerable number of people are allergic to antibiotics. Without a comprehensive analysis about the antibiotics, the arguer cannot make the recommendation.
　　In sum, the arguer’s conclusion is unconvincing as it stands, since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to it. To bolster the conclusion, the arguer should give the evidence to prove that antibiotics can shorten the recuperation time under the same conditions including the doctor of the same level, the patients of the same body condition and the therapy. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know the percentage of the secondary infections of the patients diagnosed with muscle strain.

逻辑很严谨，语言也很好，没有什么可以挑剔的了，好文章:loveliness:

springelfUID: 2458536

（分段的时候不要打空格，每段都顶格写，段与段中间空行）

The arguer in the medical newsletter recommends that all patients with muscle strain should be suggested to take antibiotics as adjuvant therapy. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites the result of an experiment on two groups of patients diagnosed with muscle strain that people who took antibiotics regularly recover much more quickly. However, a close scrutiny of the facts reveals that they do not lend any credible support to the recommendation.

To begin with, the arguer falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would suffer secondary infections. However, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. In addition, the arguer assumes that the shorter the average recuperation time, the better the treatment. But the recuperation time is probably not a good indicator of the treatment, which may includes the condition of recovery and whether there is any sequela.（感觉in addtion这一条有点牵强，能不用尽量不用吧。哦，偶是学医的~~） Failing to provide any evidence to support the assumption, I will remain unconvinced of the conclusion the arguer draws.

Secondly, the validity of the survey is doubtful. From the experiment cited in the argument, we find no evidence to prove that the two groups of patients are representative to reflect the general situation of patients with muscle strain. It is entirely possible that patients of the first group are the old or women with relatively weaker body condition by contrast to the young or men in the second group. Besides, we have good reasons to doubt whether the patients studied constitute a sufficiently large sample to represent the overall patients. In short, lacking information about the number of patients studied and the their ages, gender and physical characteristics, it is impossible to assess the validity of the results.

Thirdly, no evidence has been offered to support the claim that it is the antibiotic that shorten the recuperation time. The level and experience of doctors is also an important contributing factor of the recovery. Given that Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine while Dr. Alton is a general physician and experts of sports medicine is better skilled in treating muscle strain than general physician in most cases. Perhaps it is some regular exercise advised by Dr. Newland or some other auxiliary treatment rather than the antibiotics that works. Moreover, it is entirely possible that sugar pills taken by patients of the second group do harm to the recovery and will extend the recuperation time. Without ruling out there possibilities, I remain unconvinced that it is the antibiotics that attributes to the recovery.

Finally, even if the antibiotics actually works （work）, it is unreasonable to recommend that the antibiotics should be used for all patients with muscle strain. Despite killing bacteria and preventing infection, the antibiotics can bring many problems such as side effects, not to mention that a considerable number of people are allergic to antibiotics. Without a comprehensive analysis about the antibiotics, the arguer cannot make the recommendation.
In sum, the arguer’s conclusion is unconvincing as it stands, since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to it. To bolster the conclusion, the arguer should give the evidence to prove that antibiotics can shorten the recuperation time under the same conditions including the doctor of the same level, the patients of the same body condition and the therapy. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know the percentage of the secondary infections of the patients diagnosed with muscle strain.

（excellent articles with frequent language and strong demonstration！ You can get 5！！）