[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 cuttlefishwang [复制链接]

cuttlefishwang
UID: 2592092

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 149
注册时间: 2009-1-17
精华: 0
帖子: 0

发表于 2009-2-2 22:10:34 |显示全部楼层

请大家多多指教！

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: 1 premise: argument中并没有说病人是否二次感染

2错误类比 patients 不同 doctor不同 sugar pills与 antibiotic 作用不同
3急于概括有的人可能对抗生素过敏或者抗生素有副作用

By doing a research of two groups of patients, the suspicion that secondary infections prevent patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain by doctors is confirmed, to be more convinced about the assertion, the author made a comparison between the two groups of patients who have different direction of doctors at the same time, the former be in sports while the latter be in general physis. However, the recommendation is not so convinceable as it seems to be, for it relies on a
series of unsubstantiated assumptions.
To begin with, the assertion stands on the assumption that secondary infections take place. Yet, we are not confirmed that except the severe muscle strain, what else will actually happen to these patients. There are totally not a strong evidence attest that it is a must for patients who have muscle severe to have secondary infection, or that it is easier for this kind of patients to be infected during the process of healing for the second time. It is of great possibility that other reasons do exist which slow down the speed of heeling.
Secondly, even the assumption was reasoneable enough to support its followthrough research, the testees’ reliability of the test’s consequences is questionable. First, no any meterials of the two groups of patients were given above involving their ages, sexual and other physiological characteristics. There do exists the possibility that patients of first group who recover better and faster than the second one for better quality of bodies, lighter infections ,or just because younger ages, with which condition a shorter process of recovery can be obtain. Second, whether a doctor is sitable for patients is a concernful factor,as commen sense, a doctor major in sports medicine has a better knowledge of severe muscle strain than one who specializes in general physis ,on this condition,
methods of treatment become a crucial factor to the results of experiment. Third, patients of the second group who took sugar pills instead of antibiotics without the premise that sugar pills have neither positive nor negtive effect on patients. What really make sense to patients maynot be the benefitial of antibiotic,but be the bad effect of sugar pills and again, arthor’s assertion loses it’s persuation.
Thirdly, speaker extrapolate conclution from results of the experiment without comprehensibly consideration. What if antibiotic ‘s side-effect by which other problems will show up companied by good ones ? what if patients are sensitive to antibiotics in which situation leading to a worse condition? Several other accidential conditions should be seriously figured out before making a conclusion.
In sum, the argument relies on severral poor assumptions and hence make the conclusion not so convinceable as it stands. To enforce persuation of conclution, a particular and comprehensive meterial of relatively knowledge of severe muscle strain as well as introduction proving that the study of patients was done under the same condition, including treating way,treating environment ,and so forth.Only in this way can the argument be strong and persuable.