Argument51 [Jet]小组第四次作业 互拍 ALL WELCOME

xiahsoulUID: 2441730

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."
WORD:453                                    TIME:2008.2.10
提纲：
1.前提不一定成立：调查的人的背景、年龄、健康状况都不知道，可能第一组和第二组的人的年龄不同，比如一组是20.30岁的年轻人而第二主是50岁的老人，这样恢复慢是很正常的，同样的如果第一组是轻伤而第二组都是重伤，自然更难康复
2.作者的论证说二次感染使人们康复更慢由于没有考录到其他因素同样会影响康复结果，被再次削弱了，比如由于一组的医生是专业的，二组的没有这么好的专业技能，或者第一组的人心态好，积极锻炼比第二组好，或者休息更好，或者糖丸有副作用，都可能是导致一组好的更快的原因。而且仅仅用时间来比较会比较武断。
3.结论的推广不成立：不是每个人受了伤都会感染，更别说二次感染，不一定要对ALL用药，而且副作用没有说道，万一会导致过敏或者对于某些器官-不如说肝脏的损坏就不能推广。
从新修改

Before advising muscle strain patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, both the effect of antibiotics on preventing secondary infections and the generalization of the medicine to a broader scale needs more reexaminations..

To begin with, the study cited by the arguer to substantiate the positive effect of recuperation is not so tenable that the arguer didn't provide any information about the age, background, severity of injuries and general healthy of the two groups of patients. There is a good chance that the age, background, severity of injuries and general healthy differs from one another, and it is these factors serve to the difference of recuperation time. In fact, if in the first group in which all the patients are young people in their 20s while in the second group there are mainly senior people who are in their 70s, it is no denying that the first group is more likely to recuperate quicker. The same is true of the severity of injuries, if the patients in the first group are just muscle strain while the patients in the second group are severe injured, it goes without saying that the second group would spend more time to get well. In light of this, therefore, the arguer’s advice on the basis of the study is open to doubt.

Secondly, the study of the experimental and control groups is further flawed for the absence of taking possible alternatives into consideration. We know the doctors in the two groups are specialized at different fields, and their medical skill which largely determined the healing time would be different. If Dr.Newleand who treats the first group, a sports medicine specialist, is proficient at muscle injuries and also do some massage to the patients, while the doctor of the second group, a general physician is experienced in internal injuries, it is reasonable that the first group patients would heal quicker.  Moreover, the arguer neglects the possible potential side-effects of the sugar pills; perhaps it is just the sugar pills that contribute to the longer recuperation time.

Finally, even if we accept that antibiotics conduce to recuperation, apply this conclusion insofar as all the muscle strain patients is groundless. As far as I am concerned, not all the muscle strain patients would get infected, let alone the second infection. In addition, perhaps the antibiotics will bring along some damages to patients. For example, it is possible the antibiotics will cause some patients allergic for we don't know the exact constitution of all the patients, or it is entire possible the antibiotics would damage the function of liver, lead to the abnormality of the kidney, cause the infant malformation when the prenanct women took some kinds of antibiotics. If any scenarios above are the case, it is obviously we cannot prescribe these antibiotics to all the patients.

To sum up, the arguer fails to prove that the antibiotics provide a boost for the healing of secondary infection and to generalize the conclusion to all the muscle strain patients.




留链互拍                                    :handshake

[ 本帖最后由 xiahsoul 于 2008-2-12 12:34 编辑 ]

leftkissUID: 2347956

:)

提纲：1.前提不一定成立：调查的人的背景、年龄、健康状况都不知道，可能第一组和第二组的人的年龄不同，比如一组是20.30岁的年轻人而第二主是50岁的老人，这样恢复慢是很正常的，同样的如果第一组是轻伤而第二组都是重伤，自然更难康复----具体化了~很赞！！2.作者的论证说二次感染使人们康复更慢由于没有考录到其他因素同样会影响康复结果，被再次削弱了，比如由于一组的医生是专业的，二组的没有这么好的专业技能，或者第一组的人心态好，积极锻炼比第二组好，或者休息更好，或者糖丸有副作用，都可能是导致一组好的更快的原因。而且仅仅用时间来比较会比较武断。3.结论的推广不成立：不是每个人受了伤都会感染，更别说二次感染，不一定要对ALL用药，而且副作用没有说道，万一会导致过敏或者对于某些器官-不如说肝脏的损坏就不能推广。

Before advising muscle strain patients to take antibiotics as part of their treatment, both the effect of antibiotics on preventing secondary infections and the generalization of the medicine to a broader scale needs more reexaminations.

——没有用模板～支持

To begin with, the study cited by the arguer to substantiate the positive effect of recuperation is not so tenable that the arguer didn't provide any information about the age, background, severity of injuries and general health of the two groups of patients. There is a good chance that the age, background, severity of injuries and general healthy differs from one another（有点重复了…可以试试difference of recuperation might result from these factors mentioned above if they were different）, and it is these factors serve to the difference of recuperation time. In fact, if in the first group in which all the patients are young people in their 20s while in the second group there are mainly senior people who are in their 70s, it is no denying that the first group is more likely to recuperate quicker. The same is true of the severity of injuries, if the patients in the first group are just muscle strain while the patients in the second group are severe injured, it goes without saying that the second group would spend more time to get well.（加点总结更好了……）

Secondly, the study of the experimental and control groups is further flawed for the absence of taking possible alternatives into consideration. We know the doctors in the two groups are specialized at different fields, and their medical skill which largely determined the healing time would be different. If Dr.Newleand who treats the first group, a sports medicine specialist, is proficient at muscle injuries, and the doctor of the second group, a general physician is experienced in fracture of the bone（这个有解释说是对骨折有研究么？physician是内科医师）, it is reasonable that the first group patients would heal quicker.  Moreover, the arguer neglects the possible potential side-effects of the sugar pills, perhaps it is just the sugar pills that contribute to the longer recuperation time.

Finally, even if we accept that antibiotics conduce to recuperation, apply this conclusion insofar as all the muscle strain patients is groundless.（这句好） As far as I am concerned, not all the muscle strain patients would get infected, let alone the second infection. And perhaps the antibiotics will cause some patients allergic for we don't know the exact constitution（体质） of all the patients. In addition, it is entire possible the antibiotics would bring along some damages to human beings--such as damage the function of liver. If any scenarios above are the case, it is obviously we cannot prescribe these antibiotics to all the patients.

--——这段论述很好

To sum up, the arguer fails to prove that the antibiotics provide boosting for the healing of secondary infection and to generalize the conclusion to all the muscle strain patients.

小结：

比较有自己的风格，语言流畅，没有模板痕迹，写得很好～值得学习啊^^

[ 本帖最后由 leftkiss 于 2008-2-12 00:06 编辑 ]