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

过期的蛋糕UID: 2586400

Argument51
The following appeared in a medical newsletter.
"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keepsomepatients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain.Thishypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study oftwogroups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treatedformuscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes insportsmedicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment.Theirrecuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker thantypicallyexpected. Patients in the second group, all being treated byDr. Alton,a general physician, were given sugar pills, although thepatientsbelieved they were taking antibiotics. Their averagerecuperation timewas not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patientswho arediagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to takeantibioticsas 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.study有问题，医生，患者情况都不一样。
2.作者的推论均是在一个前提，就是得了肌肉拉伤一定会得二次感染，并且二次感染一定会延缓康复。(我觉得这篇文章主要是用这个实验来证明这个观点，而并不是以它为前提去得出什么推论，这里值得推敲一下进一步)
3.所有人都服用抗生素，可能会有过敏，有抗药性 之类的。


In this newsletter, the author recommends that allpatients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibioticsas part of their treatment, because the secondary infections may delaythe process of the treatment. To strengthen this recommendation, theauthor cites a compared conclusion on a study about two groups ofpatients treated by different doctors. However, the argument rests on aseries of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive.

First, the study cited by the author was open to doubt.The author fails to consider possible differences between the people inthe same position of the two groups that might help to （是否可以去掉不要呢） bring about adifferent result. The doctors were different. The one who specializesin sports medicine might be good at the treatment because he wasfamiliar to （with） the construction of the muscle. Furthermore, the patientswere different. Therefore their condition of the muscle injured weredifferent. Maybe, the patients in the second group injured moreseverely than those in the first group. Thus, without ruling out thesepossibilities, it is unfairly （unfair 这里应该是做it的表语形容词，而不是conclude的状语副词） to conclude that the patient in the firstgroup recovers quickly due to the antibiotics. (这一段论证很清晰，假设也非常合理)

Second, the author makes a conclusion based on thepremise that the patients who injured their muscle would get secondaryinfections. However, he provides no evidence to prove it. Perhaps, thepatients in the two groups did not get secondary infections. Suchresult that the recuperation time of the patients in the first groupwas quicker was gotten just by the reason of the two groups' different.Or perhaps the secondary infections after a severe muscle strain dosenot affect the treatment, though antibiotics are indeed effective tothe secondary infections. Without accounting for the explanations, theauthor cannot make a conclusion that taking antibiotics will abbreviatethe time of the treatment.（这一段的思路可以按照上面说的调整一下，这个实验也并不能证明说二次感染阻碍了恢复的速度，就算的确是抗生素起了作用，也不一定是二次感染的问题，可能根本就是一次感染。ps,这也只是我个人的理解了，可以周末的时候和大家讨论看看^^）

Third, even assuming that taking antibiotics can reducethe recuperation time, it is unreasonable to ask all the patients whoinjured their muscle to take it. The author obviously overlooks otherpossible conditions. Perhaps some people injured are allergic to theantibiotics. Perhaps the antibiotics were not effective to the patientswho ever abused of it just because the resistance to the action of thedrug. If these patients take the antibiotics(这里的the也可以不要~), it is harmful to theirhealth and the time of the treatment may be enlonged.

In sum, the author's recommendation about all patientsinjured their muscle would take antibiotics is not well supported as itstands. To bolster it, the author must provide more evidence thatsecondary infections can keep patients from healing quickly. To betterassess the problem, I would also need to know the antibiotics canprevent the secondary infections, and it cannot cause allergy.