argument51 [AWB小组]第七次作业

tly823UID: 2145205

TOPIC: 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."

The argument presented above tries to convince us that it is the antibiotics that cure the muscle strain. But the conclusion is based on a untenanted study and some oversimplified and unwarranted reasons.

The threshold problem in this argument is that the two groups of study about the treat of different patients lacks of comparison. First, we are not provided any information about the background of the two groups of patients. Were they have the same extent of severe muscle strain?Were they all male?Were they all middle-aged men?Were they all have identical constitution? Without informed about the same condition of these two groups of patients, I cannot be convinced that the results of those two groups is reliable. Likewise, the two doctors whom are come from different occupations are quite possible to adopt different measures to heal them leading to different effects, which renders the study open to doubt.

Moreover, even assuming that the study's process is scientifically right, the results of the treatment is confusing in two ways: At first, it is said that the first group's recuperation time was 40 percent quicker than typically expected. It is quite possible that the original expectation for their recuperation time is much longer than the second group. Thus, it is unconvincing when it compare to the result of the second goup. Secondly, the word" average" requires our attention. We may wander that in the second groups there are one or two special person, who is allergic with the sugar pill so that it accelerates the muscle strain pain and then prolongs the recuperation time to more month. Although the other patients are actually recover from the muscle strain sooner than the first group, due to the one or two , the average recupertion time was longer than first group.

Furthermore, granted that it is a fact that all second group recover from there illness quicker than the second group, there is no evidence provided to substantiate that it is the antibiotics that lead to the curative effect. It is entirely possible that the cure of muscle strain is related to the food that contains certain calcium which plays a crucial role in healing. And it is equally possible that the patients take other pills beyond the pills given by doctors. Any of these scenarios, if true, may cast considerable doubt on the conclusion that it is the antibiotics that heal the patients.

Last but not the least, the final conclusion that all patients who are suffered from muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is totally unreasonable, for it may be not suitable for other not severe injured patients. Unless the antibiotics are proved to be effective to all the muscle strain patients, hardly could I agree on the author’s sweeping generation.

In sum, the conclusion is not compelling due to problematic reasons. To undergird it, a thorough study should made to concerning the real efficiency of antibiotics to all kinds of muscle strain patent, which the arguer fail to provide.

[ 本帖最后由 tly823 于 2007-3-5 16:38 编辑 ]

bloodwinnerUID: 2293757

The argument presented above tries to convince us that it is the antibiotics that cure the muscle strain. But the conclusion is based on a untenanted（untenanted是“未被租用”的意思） study and some oversimplified and unwarranted reasons.

The threshold problem in this argument is that the two groups of study（是the study of two groups） about the treat of different patients lacks of comparison(the study lacks of comparison?是什么意思？“缺乏对比性”是中文说法). First, we are not provided any information about the background of the two groups of patients. Were they have(were they have? Did they have) the same extent of severe muscle strain?Were they all male?Were they all middle-aged men?Were they all have(did they have) identical constitution?(这个关于人是否具有相同构造的表达方法我没见过，从字面上看是对的，不知道欧美人看了怎么觉得，不过，够大胆) Without informed（being informed） about the same condition of these two groups of patients, I cannot be convinced that the results of those two groups is reliable(单复数问题，results-is). Likewise, the two doctors whom are(去掉are) come from different occupations(come from occupations 是可以表示从不同岗位上来吗？) are quite possible to adopt different measures to heal them（这个them已经产生歧义，是指patients,还是doctors,还是measures?） leading to different effects, which renders the study open to doubt(这句不错，录用了).

Moreover, even assuming that the study's process is scientifically right, the results of the treatment is(单复数问题，results-is) confusing in two ways: At first, it is said that the first group's recuperation time was 40 percent quicker than typically expected. It is quite possible that the original expectation for their recuperation time is much longer than the second group.（这个有点转牛角尖的嫌疑） Thus, it is unconvincing when it compare（is compared） to the result of the second goup. Secondly, the word" average" requires our attention. We may wander(wonder?) that in the second groups there are one or two special person, who is allergic with（to） the sugar pill so that it accelerates the muscle strain pain and then prolongs the recuperation time to more month. Although the other patients are actually recover(are recover错误) from the muscle strain sooner than the first group（other patients vs first group.不是同类在比，组和组比，人和人比）, due to the one or two , the average recupertion time was longer than first group. （仍然有点转牛角尖的嫌疑，我想老外不会这样按绝对时间的平均值来算。简单说，一个人一辈子都没恢复，9个人很快就恢复，我们也会说“平均很快恢复”，而不是说“平均都没恢复”）

Furthermore, granted that it is a fact that all second group recover from there illness quicker than the second group, （这个所有第二组的人都恢复快的假设，连作者都没做...你为何退到这里？）there is no evidence provided to substantiate that it is the antibiotics that lead to the curative effect. It is entirely possible that the cure of muscle strain is related to the food that contains certain calcium which plays a crucial role in healing. And it is equally possible that the patients take other pills beyond the pills given by doctors. Any of these scenarios, if true, may cast considerable doubt on the conclusion that it is the antibiotics that heal the patients.

Last but not the least, the final conclusion that all patients who are suffered(仍是are recover的错误，suffered) from muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is totally unreasonable, for it may be not(may not be) suitable for other not severe(severely) injured patients. Unless the antibiotics are proved to be effective to all the muscle strain patients, hardly could I agree on the author’s sweeping generation.

In sum, the conclusion is not compelling due to problematic reasons. To undergird it, a thorough study should (缺少be) made to concerning(concern) the real efficiency of antibiotics to all kinds of muscle strain patent, which the arguer fail (fails) to provide.

语法方面的问题，应该好好留心动词和be动词的用法。
在结构方面，忽略了一个重要问题，作者提议使用抗生素的原因并不是抗生素能用来治疗伤痛，而是抗生素能抑制secondart infection，所以我们应该攻击作者关于所有伤痛患者都会有secondart infection的潜在假设。