Argument51 【☆09GRE作文冲刺组☆】swbai 2月24号作业

swbaiUID: 2600532

题目：ARGUMENT51 - 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."
字数：417          用时：0:34:35          日期：2009-2-24
In this report the author recommends the patients suffered muscle strain should take antibiotics for their treatment. To support this recommendation, the author cites the following facts about the patients: (1) doctors suspected that second infections keep the patient from recovering muscle strain; (2) the two groups of patient proves what doctors suspected is true. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.

First, doctors suspected that second infections keep the patient seek do not necessary indicate that second infections really do great harm to the patient.
Perhaps, one doctor made the mistake conclusion, and other doctors simply learn that, and they have never see the sample before. For that matter, perhaps the secondary has nothing to do with muscle strain, while the patient is so active that he/she cannot stop to go to the playground. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for the secondary infection the author cannot convince me on the basisi of them that secondary infections keep some patients from healing quickly.

Secondly, the experiment of two groups of patients is little indication that a secondary infection harms patients. Perhaps the number of patients in each group is so small that the sample does not available to prove anything. Or perhaps the recuperation of the second group is so quick, which only took two days, and it can not tell that the patient suffered from secondary infections. Besides, the doctors' careless may be a cause that the first group is different from the second group.

Thirdly, the fact that a secondary infection keeps the patient to recover from muscle strain accomplishes nothing toward bolstering the recommendation. The patients also have different reaction between the secondary infections. Some of the patient has great immunity, that taking antibiotics is just a waste of money, while some patient have to take more efficient antibiotics as well. Besides, there are also many ways to prevent secondary infection, such as take the disinfector outside of the body.

In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation the author must provide clear evidence--perhaps by way of national wide survey or study--that whether the secondary infection has a serious effect on patients who suffered from muscle strain. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know the details about the study of two groups of patients. I would also need to know how the secondary infection affects patients.