Argue 51 dganggang (kito) 超时1min 520字 越来越感觉argue题目无聊 拍死它！

dganggangUID：2125101

51The 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.'

提纲：第一组实验缺乏代表性
         第二组实验根本很无聊 没有任何作用
         需要其他药的临床验证来得出结论

This argument has introduced us a new medical discovery of muscle injury treatment. The conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is based on the results of a study of two groups of patients.

The well-organized presentation has not changed the fact that the inference and logic relation of this newsletter is not well-reasoned.

In the first place, the first research result is based on the fallacy that the arguer does not mention the selection of the samples who take part in the research. Muscle injuries have various causes which should be treated in different ways. However, we have no idea about what kind of patients have are supposed to join in the first group and what really causes their injuries, what's more, we don't know either what's the situation of their strain or whether they already got the second infections or not. Under this circumstance, the reduction of the recuperation time via the antibiotics has no representative function covering all the patients who have muscle injuries. Furthermore, Dr. Newland who treated the patients of the first group is major in sports medicine, but it is our common sense that sports injury is only one part of the muscle injuries, which has made the research result more partial again.

In the second place, the second group seems to be absolutely useless for us to draw any relevant conclusion. The patients have only been given some sugar pills, which means they have not got any useful medicine. Therefore, we have no doubt that the average recuperation time was not significantly reduced because they almost have nothing to help their recuperation. What's more ridiculous is that the arguer seems to expect to take this result to prove that those who do not take antibiotics will recover much more slowly, but the obvious prerequisite is the patients without any proper medical care will have no chance to quick recuperation. Thus, the research of the second group has no necessary relation with the first group and the final conclusion at all to some extent.

Finally, the arguer fails to organize another group of patients who may try other kinds of medicine which may be influential to the muscle injuries. The preponderate status of antibiotics should be proved by comparing with other medicine which is aimed at the same medical use, not the case that using no medicine. However, there seems no such compare which is a necessity in this case and virtually the arguer concludes that muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics based on the single research of the first group. This unscientific and groundless method is totally unconvincing and naive to some extent.

In sum, the arguer may have to find a new group or more groups of the research on muscle injuries to make an objective conclusion, meanwhile, he should readjust the organization of the first group of antibiotics. Before that, his conclusion has no medical value to us and we can not fully take advantage of the antibiotics in all the cases of muscle strain.

@amy@UID：209096

This argument has introduced us a new medical discovery of muscle injury treatment. The conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is based on the results of a study of two groups of patients.

The well-organized presentation has not changed the fact that the inference and logic relation of this newsletter is not well-reasoned.

In the first place, the first research result is based on the fallacy that the arguer does not mention the selection of the samples who [that] take part in the research. Muscle injuries have various causes[,] which should be treated in different ways. However, we have no idea about what kind of patients have are supposed [这里有语病] to join in the first group and what really causes their injuries, what's more, we don't know either what's the situation of their strain or whether they already got the second infections or not. Under this circumstance, the reduction of the recuperation time via the antibiotics has no representative function covering all the patients who have muscle injuries. Furthermore, Dr. Newland who treated the patients of the first group is major in sports medicine, but it is our common sense that sports injury is only one part of the muscle injuries,[即使Dr. Newland majors in sports medicine，必不能说明他现在治疗的是哪种肌肉拉伤啊] which has made the research result more partial again.

In the second place, the second group seems to be absolutely useless for us to draw any relevant conclusion. The patients have only [作者没有only give sugar pills的意思吧？] been given some sugar pills, which means they have not got any useful medicine. Therefore, we have no doubt that the average recuperation time was not significantly reduced because they almost have nothing to help their recuperation. What's more ridiculous is that the arguer seems to expect to take this result to prove that those who do not take antibiotics will recover much more slowly, but the obvious prerequisite is the patients without any proper medical care will have no chance to quick recuperation. Thus, the research of the second group has no necessary relation with the first group and the final conclusion at all to some extent.[关于你这段的观点我有些保留，好像我们对题目理解不同]

Finally, the arguer fails to organize another group of patients who may try other kinds of medicine[,] which may be influential to the muscle injuries. The preponderate status of antibiotics should be proved by comparing with other medicine which is aimed at the same medical use, not the case that using no medicine. However, there seems no such compare which is a necessity in this case and virtually the arguer concludes that muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics based on the single research of the first group. [题目不是基于两组的比较吗？]This unscientific and groundless method is totally unconvincing and naive to some extent.

In sum, the arguer may have to find a new group or more groups of the research on muscle injuries to make an objective conclusion,[;] meanwhile, he should readjust the organization of the first group of antibiotics. Before that, his conclusion has no medical value to us and we can not fully take advantage of the antibiotics in all the cases of muscle strain.

果小冻UID：208370

我也写了的，互拍哈
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... B%B9%FB%D0%A1%B6%B3

dganggangUID：2125101

第一段确实见那个体育是不对
而第二组我也搞不动了 为何要提什么sugar呢 还要骗patient？

楼上不要赞勒 这篇写的也挺糊涂