Argument51 【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】第二周第二次作业 on 过期的蛋糕

susannerUID: 2209224

Argument51 The following appeared in a medical newsletter. "Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep somepatients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. Thishypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of twogroups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated formuscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sportsmedicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Theirrecuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typicallyexpected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton,a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patientsbelieved they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation timewas not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who arediagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibioticsas 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。实验数据上有严重不严密。两组人数不知。两组人的病情也没有交代。不知道是否有可比较性。 2。第一组比预期快40％也不能说明1st group比2nd恢复的快。可能两组的期望值本身就不一样。（这个理由感觉有点牵强） 3。恢复快的原因有很多，不一定是因为antibiotics的作用。 4.另外即使是因为antibiotics，也不能草率让所有人take antibiotics，可能有些人会过敏等等，你还可以举其他例子。 正文 In this argument, by comparison of 2 groups of patients with different treatments, one group took antibiotics while the other did not,（by comparision of two groups ,one of which took antibiotics while the other did not） the author suggested that patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics, since the group took antibiotics recuperated quicker. At first glance, it seems reasonable, but after scrutiny this argument contains several logical flaws as follows. First of all, with regard to the study, it contains no information about the consistent (composition 或者structure，consistent是形容词)of two groups of patients. There might be some aspects that can weaken the result of this study. Such aspects could include the number of each group and the situation of patients in both groups.（the number and patients‘ situation of each group） Statistics told us, if samples in two groups are not equal, any kind of comparison is meaningless. Even I assume that these two groups are numerically the same, I still cannot find an absolute number（这句啥意思）. If there are only couples of patients participating in this study, they are obviously not sufficient to represent all the muscle strain patients. In addition, perhaps patients in the first group are exactly suffer from muscle injuries, which need antibiotics, while those in the second group are occurring some other muscle problem which has nothing to do with the effect of antibiotics. Thus, to make this study more convincing, the author must provide description of these two involved groups. Moreover, the author fails to point out the expectation recuperation time of the two groups respectively. It is entirely possible that expectation of the first group is much lower than the other one. Then, even 40 percent quicker than expected, patients of the first group still took more time to heal than those from the second one. In this case, this study can not be an evidence to the author's suggestion. Even though I conceived that these two groups are comparable and the first one do performed a quicker recuperation time by using antibiotics, there are some other possible alternatives to explain this quicker recuperation. Perhaps Dr. Newland, treating the first group, make the patients took other medicine also, and actually the main contribution is from this other medicine but not antibiotics. Or perhaps Dr. Newland's treatment was more effective than Dr. Alton in itself, so with or without antibiotics, patients under Dr. Newland will heal quicker. What's more, maybe in fact, after using antibiotics, the recuperation time of Dr. newland’s treatment became longer than it used to be. Therefore, without rueling out all the other possibilities, I cannot be persuaded to believe the author's final suggestion. Overall, this well-presented argument is not well-reasoned. The author should make necessary improvement of the study and consider completely all the reasons why the first group recuperated quicker than the asecond one in order to convince me that muscle strain patients would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. 总体结构很合理，论证3大段，语言组织上有很大的进步余地。语言上可以去参考下我的文章哈。