Argument51 【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】 第二周第二次作业 by susanner

susannerUID: 2209224

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."
医生长期以来怀疑严重肌肉扭伤后的二次感染妨碍了一些患者迅速康复。这一假说现在被一项对两组患者的研究的初步结果所证实。第一组患者全部由专攻运动医学的Dr. Newland治疗肌肉损伤，他们在疗程中经常服用抗生素。他们的康复期平均比通常预期的快40％。第二组患者由综合医师Dr. Alton治疗，他们被给予糖丸，而患者相信他们在服用抗生素。他们的平均康复时间没有明显缩短。因此，任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗。
【提纲】
1.论断的前提不一定成立。前提是二次感染一定会发生。但是论者没有提供任何资料证明二次感染会发生在肌肉拉伤的病人身上，或是这种病人容易发生二次感染。
2.论断引用的论据没有说服力。论断引用了一项分组研究。但是首先论者没有提供任何有关两组病人的资料。有关他们的年龄、性别以及其他生理特征。有可能服用抗生素的一组病人比较年轻，或是本身生理机能好，而不服用的一组病人可能都是体质弱的人。这样就不能说明是抗生素而不是其他原因使得病人康复快。
3.另外两位医生的经验和水平也会影响病人康复的速度，一般来说运动医生会比普通医生更了解肌肉的问题，所以由他治疗的病人康复快，就不能排除是因为他的水平高或是治疗有针对性造成，这样也不能说明是抗生素使得病人康复快。
4.不服抗生素的一组食用了糖片，而论者没有给出资料证明这种糖片不会影响病人的康复。所以对这两组病人的研究并不能说明抗生素能使病人康复快。 ·55.论断太武断。论者由二次感染会防碍病人快速康复而认为要建议病人服用抗生素。但是抗生素除了会杀菌防止感染外，还可能会带来其他问题，比如副作用，也可能有的病人会对抗生素过敏。对于这些情况论者没有考虑进来。
【正文】
In a medical newsletter, the author recommends patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics.To support the recommendation, the author cites a hypothesis proved by results of a study which involved two groups of patients. However, careful scrutiny of the study reveals that it accomplishes little toward supporting the report’s conclusion, as discussed below.
First of all,according to the statement, the author's recommendation based on an unsubstantiated assumption that all the patients with severe muscle strain would suffer from secondary infections.But the author provides no evidence to prove this assumption which render the recommendation unconvincing.
Secondly, to support the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain ,the author cites a study which does not provide any information about the physical conditions of the patients in each group.Perhaps one group is made up of young patients and they are bound to recover much quickly since they are comparably strong and robust.On the contrary,the other group consists of eldly people who are physically weak and therefore tend to recover in a longer period. In this case, the study lacks reliability and therefore could not lend strong support to the author's recommendation.
Thirdly, whether taking antibiotics is really contributed to the recuperation of muscle strain patients is open to doubt because the arguer fails to provide concrete information concerning all the therapeutic methods executed on the two groups of muscle strain patients respectively. It is very likely that Dr. Newland, who specializes in sports medicine, also assumes other effective medicines or other subsidiary treatment methods such as body exercises, massage, dietetic ways etc, maybe all of which are ignored by the general physician. In this case, we cannot ensure that it is the antibiotics that result in the quick recuperation of the muscle strain patients.
Fourthly, the group without taking antibotics has been given sugar pills. The author does not provide any evidence about the effect of sugar pills on severe muscle strain. Perhaps the longer recuperation time is attributable, at least partly, to sugar pills. In this case, the author's recommendation will be unpersuasive.
Finally, the author commits a fallacy of over generalization in claiming that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics. Even if taking antibiotics really helps to reduce the recuperation time of the muscle strain patients, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, there is no guarantee that taking antibiotics is suitable for every patient suffered from muscle strain. We can see from the study that the recuperation time of patients in the first group was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected, which means some people may sustain the typical time or even protract the typical time. To these kind of people, taking antibiotics maybe proved to be ineffective in their recuperation or even do harm to their bodies if they are allergic to antibiotics.

In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the conclusion the author of the newsletter must provide clear evidence to support the hypothesis . And the author needs to provide evidence to prove that the shorter recuperation is due to antibiotics. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know the side-effects which might be caused by the antibotics.

[ 本帖最后由 susanner 于 2009-1-19 08:18 编辑 ]

zeyiwangUID: 2477176

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1