argument51[Jet小组第四次作业]

huangli711UID: 2451421

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."

Conclusion from the author of this newsletter, that is all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, seems to be reasonable, but at the second glance at this argument, it is beyond of conviction for three illogical factors.

Like any argument, one conclusion could be convinced only when the evidences are true and effective. In this passage, the author gave one study of two groups of patients. Hardly the preliminary result could prove this hypothesis, which is that doctors suspected the relationship between the secondary infections and the antibiotics on muscle strain, because the arguer told nothing about the two groups of patients, such as their age groups, sexes, or physical conditions. Beast on the first group patients might be stronger, younger, and better conditions, the latter group, of course, would spend longer time to cure their muscle strain. Even if the doctor did not provide any antibiotics, the result—40 percent quicker than typically expected—is possibly happened. Thus, the study could not support this background that the author gave in the argument, and the advice to take antibiotics as part of treatment would be taken out of consideration.

Forget the first paragraph, and imagining that almost same patients in two groups in the study, the 40 percent quicker would also be brought by other reasons but the antibiotics, such as the major of the doctors. In the first group, the Dr.(Doctor) Newland, who specializes in sports medicine, has more chance to access to muscle strain patients, and that means he could be more experienced than other general physician doctors, and Dr. Alton—the second group main doctor—is exactly one of them. Because of more experience and professional knowledge, Dr. Newland can support some practices as part of treatment, which might strengthen patients’ muscle and make them cured by themselves sooner, without any antibiotics the patients would also recover 30 to 40 percent quicker. Besides, Dr. Newland, perhaps made the cure schedule more suitable to the body, thanks to his experience. To the contract, Dr. Alton could do nothing to make any difference on the result even if he supported the patients more antibiotics. This discussion claims that, antibiotic is not the only reason why the first group recuperation time on average is 40 percent quicker.

If the doctors’ methods in this study and the inside and outside condition of the patients are same, the 40 percent quicker of recuperation time might be result from the sugar pills, which are supported in the second group. No evidence in the argument could illustrate the sugar pills have no effect on recuperating muscle strain. And if the content of sugar in blood would delay the cure progress, the average recuperation time of second group must be longer than usual time, and sometimes the expected time is also longer than usual time, so the second group’s result is not significantly different with expected time. Meanwhile, compared with the delayed time, it is not strange 40 percent quicker, as nothing special curing method.

From what has been discussed above, the arguer can strengthen the argument in several ways. He should provide the secondary infection percent in all types of muscle strain, and one large quantity of survey would helps to make the result more believable. Addition to one result, the solution to secondary infection should be discussed more effective rather than only one study. Till all questions have been answered, the author could make a convinced conclusion.
      
没有时间限制，所以写的有点多，多谢修改~~


[ 本帖最后由 huangli711 于 2008-2-8 14:23 编辑 ]

hds123523000UID: 2454889

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."

Conclusion from the author of this newsletter, that【which啊，好像that不能这样用啊】 is all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, seems to be reasonable, but at the second glance at this argument, it is beyond of conviction for three illogical factors.【句子写的不错，但是好像中心错了，应该是二次感染的理论吧】

Like any argument, one conclusion could be convinced【convincing】 only when the evidences are true and effective. In this passage, the author gave one study of two groups of patients. Hardly the preliminary result could【倒装是不是could要提前啊】 prove this hypothesis, which is that doctors suspected【既然是理论，那么这里的怀疑就用得不好】 the relationship between the secondary infections and the antibiotics on muscle strain, because the arguer told nothing about the two groups of patients, such as their age groups, sexes, or physical conditions. Beast on the first group patients might be stronger, younger, and better conditions, the latter group, of course, would spend longer time to cure their muscle strain. Even if the doctor did not provide any antibiotics, the result—40 percent quicker than typically expected—is possibly happened. Thus, the study could not support this background that the author gave in the argument, and the advice to take antibiotics as part of treatment would be taken out of consideration.

Forget the first paragraph, and imagining 【image】that almost same patients in two groups in the study, the 40 percent quicker would also be brought by other reasons but the antibiotics, such as the major of the doctors. In the first group, the Dr.(Doctor) Newland, who specializes in sports medicine, has more chance to access to muscle strain patients【怎样知道的？从常识判断？】, and that means he could be more experienced than other general physician doctors, and Dr. Alton—the second group main doctor—is exactly one of them. Because of more experience and professional knowledge, Dr. Newland can support some practices as part of treatment, which might strengthen patients’ muscle and make them cured by themselves sooner, without any antibiotics the patients would also recover 30 to 40 percent quicker【呵呵，这有点太神了吧，不过论点不错，我没有想到】. Besides, Dr. Newland, perhaps made the cure schedule【这个单词我想了很久都没记起】 more suitable to the body, thanks to his experience. To the contract, Dr. Alton could do nothing to make any difference on the result even if he supported the patients more antibiotics. This discussion claims that, antibiotic is not the only reason why the first group recuperation time on average is 40 percent quicker.【论述不错】

If the doctors’ methods in this study and 【加个both感觉好一点】the inside and outside condition of the patients are same, the 40 percent quicker of recuperation time might be result from the sugar pills, which are supported in the second group. No evidence in the argument could illustrate the sugar pills have no effect on recuperating muscle strain. And if the content of sugar in blood would delay the cure progress, the average recuperation time of second group must be longer than usual time, and sometimes the expected time is also longer than usual time, so the second group’s result is not significantly different with expected time. Meanwhile, compared with the delayed time, it is not strange 40 percent quicker, as nothing special curing method.【你这里观点很独特，但是你好像没有把题读懂啊，40%是第一组相对于标准来说，和服糖片有什么关系，难道以前的人都是靠糖片治疗？你怎么知道？而且还没有点名你要论述的中心】

From what has been discussed above, the arguer can strengthen the argument in several ways. He should provide the secondary infection percent【可以这样用哇？】 in all types of muscle strain, and one large quantity of survey would helps to make the result more believable. Addition to one result, the solution to secondary infection should be discussed more effective rather than only one study. Till all questions have been answered, the author could make a convinced conclusion.

【主要问题就在于中心错误啊】