[a习作temp] argument51 0906G三月底AW“永不言弃”互改小组第一周第一次作业 by MYcolting 2# [复制链接]

MYcolting
UID: 2563080

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 36
寄托币: 1945
注册时间: 2008-10-24
精华: 1
帖子: 16

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-2-2 18:10:59 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 MYcolting 于 2009-2-4 19:37 编辑

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."

TS:
argument中并没有说病人是否二次感染
错误类比一组病人可能都是年轻人二组都是老年人；一组的饮食好二组的不好;
医生不同一组专攻运动医学二组普通医生两人的其他用药可能不同
急于概括有的人可能对抗生素过敏或者抗生素有副作用

In this argument, the author concludes that all patients who has strained their muscle should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Nevertheless, we may find out that there are some unreasoning viewpoints and unconvincing procedures during the experiment which are questionable.

First of all, the author asserts that secondary infections may prevent patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, however, no words is provided in the essay to prove that patients in the study have been infected secondly while the arguer assumes that the patients are bond to be infected during the period of therapies. So in my view the arguer's assumption is irrational.

Even though the author's assumption is correct, we can find another flaw that weaken this argument is that the two situations are not similar enough to justify the analogical deduction. Firstly, we can say that the different time used in therapy is because of the fact that the two doctors whose specialization are varied did not use completely similar ways to heal the patients, such as
the difference in procedure or in the amount of another medicines. Secondly, another possibility leading to the different recuperation periods is that the patients of the first group is much younger than the one of the second group. As it is known to us that the young recover much faster than the old. Thirdly, if the age of two groups is basically similar, we can still suspect the different diets for two groups made the different results for the food for the first group may contain substance which is helpful for recovering.

In addition, the arguer's conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment ignores several factors that might undermine the argument. For instance, we are not able to use antibiotics when the patient is alert to it in that the action may hazard the life of patient. What's more, taking antibiotics may have some byproduct which might influence the patients' health, such as the symptom of deafness.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because of the listed flaws. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the details about the experiment