argument51 Byswekimn

swekimnUID: 2649781

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."

Grounding on the assumption, citing a study of two group, and then synthesizing the reception time and another factor that antibiotics play a significantly role in the experiment, the author accordingly assert that antibiotics can treat secondary infection efficiency. However, the argument fraught with vague, oversimplified, unwarranted evidences and exposed some inconsistency.

To begin with, the author bases on an unwarranted assumption that patients would get secondary infections after severe muscle strain, but he ignores that the most efficiency method to pretend patients from secondary infection. The argument only supplies the information that after patients get secondary infection we can take antibiotic to treat them. Maybe we should develop new way to heal patients after they severe muscle strain, such as the new medicine, new treatments, and new establishments. It is fallacy for doctors play more attentions to secondary infection. So if the patients give a good treatment in the first injures, they can avoid the secondary infection and not need treatment again. In short, the author concerns a worse attitude to treat muscle strain, so he should provide more evidences to support patients have a highly risk to get secondary infection and the doctors not have an efficiency way to avoid them occur.

Secondly, the author ignores the basic experimental elements, arbitrarily assuming that the study of the two groups can efficiency reflect the objectivity and essence of the experiment. The study set up two groups that directed by difference doctors, taken difference healers, what’s more, the study even fail to provide the status about the patients like their age and gender, extent of injure, recovery and body situation, all these mentioned lead the study to a fallacy conclusion. AS argument said, the study directed by two doctors, Dr. Newland who specializes in sports medicine and Dr. Alton who is a general physician. The author wants to use the study to prove that antibiotics can have a good curative effect in secondary infection, but he ignores that doctor may cure the patients in their professional knowledge. Dr. Alton only a general physician，may has no experience or ability to treat muscle strain patients, it is also possibility that he is good at cruel the mental disorder or other losses in nervous system, this is not suitable physical injury or even impede the cruel effect. Compare to Dr. Alton, Dr. Newland has a concrete cruel system to treat muscle train and can work more efficacious the secondary infection. So the author conclude only the antibiotic play function to cruel patients is fallacy, and he should consider the doctor ever play a positive efficiency to patients.

Additionally, the author false to reckon that the recuperation time can reflect the treatment efficiency, and he cites the fact that 40% of patients can quickly than typically expected to support his conclusion. After a deep examination, I find that the recuperation time is one of part the treatment efficiency, the study even fails to provide that the patients can be eradicate by the antibiotics. What’ more, the rest 60% patient of the first group in the study, the author not to supply their information. Maybe they have a bad convalescence, and even spend more time than the typically expected. In short, if the author cannot provide more evidence that the study can actually reflect antibiotics’ function, these facts boil down to very little significance.

To sum up, the author supplies a seemingly concrete process to conclude that take antibiotic as part of their treatment, whereas his deduction is irrational. To buttress his conclusion, the author should provide more evidence and take the study more scrupulous. Additionally, the author must rule out other possible causes of the medicine (which may have more efficacious than antibiotics’).

happy牧羊UID: 2662770

A51-byswekimn.doc (61.5 KB, 下载次数: 9)

2009-8-20 13:09:42 上传

下载次数: 9

    不好意思 前两天有点事情 没有及时帮你修改 改的都在word里面 希望对你有帮助~~ 有什么问题一起讨论哈