永不言弃小组argument51 4号作业 by3号

cuttlefishwangUID: 2592092

"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 throughtout 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:
1,两个group，病人数量太少，genralized 到all patients.
2，医生不同，1个是specializes in sport medicine很明显其经验要多于general physician.
3，没说时间，第一组只说40 percent quicker than typically "expected",没说expected是多久。
4，缺少那个叫啥实验，就是啥药物都没有用的那种实验。

    Whether a kind of medicine has good effects on a certain ailment needs plenty of control experiments. So the study carried only between two groups to reach the conclusion couldn't be completely accepted by us. Also it could not be generalized that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would take antibiotics as part of their treatment.（最好先去看看文章的一般格式~~文章的第一段一般是复述题目哦）

    In the study, each group has a different doctor. So the doctor who specializes in sports medicine must have more experiences in these sports disease, like muscle injury or muscle strain. Under the treatment of a sports medicine doctor, the patients could receive more efficient methods to recover from the muscle strain. Considering this, it is quite likely（that it is ） the doctor but not the medicine that works on the patients that makes the recuperation time 40 percent quicker than typically expected. (说医生不同)

    In addition, some other facts are questionable. What's their typically expected? How long does it? The argue fails to give us an exact time. If we don't know the average time that each groups` patients take to recuperate from the muscle strain. We can't make a convincing conclusion that antibiotics have better effect than sugar pills in treating muscle strain. Even we can `t infer whether it can shorter the recuperation time those have nothing medicine during their convalescence.（说明时间不清晰）


    Furthermore, a good study has a good statistics. Only when a data has a relative large number that can make the study accepted. The argument doesn't indicate the number of patients who take the treatment in either group. Maybe each group has only a few people, which make the study inaccuracy. Also the recovery capability makes the study's statistics floating unpredictable. So a large amount of patients is necessary and required to make the study accuracy and accepted. （两个组的数据不清晰）

   In sum, the study did between two groups then reach the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should taken antibiotics as part of treatment only by making a comparison with two groups of patients doesn't have sufficient justification. Also different doctor used in their treatment may lead to an entirely different result. Study should be more preciseness and organized. Otherwise doctors could not get a satisfied answer.
（argument没啥好说的，主要是挑毛病，不过似乎有不少逻辑错误没提出来。。。建议作者多看看前人的资料哦）