argument51同主题写作

imkrisUID: 2164272

第一次发习作，各位达人轻拍~

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."

-----------------------------------------华丽的分割线出来鸟----------------------------------------

The author cites a controlled study in order to prove the suspicion of the doctors about secondary infection, yet he fails to give enough information about the study. There are several flaws in his introduction of it. To begin with, he offers no valid material about the 2 groups of patients, which render it unconvincing. In order to appear reliable as a controlled study, the two groups should be equal except the antibiotics treatment. Are the two groups comparable in subject age, sex or severity of the injury, etc.? If no, for example, a group of young people with slight injury vs. a group of aged people with severe strain, the author cannot readily confirm me about the reliability of the study, attribute the shortening of the recuperation time to the appliance of antibiotics.

Another problem of the study is that, even the two groups are comparable; the author forgets to tell me the sample size of the study and whether the subjects chosen in this study can reflect the overall population of muscle injury patients in his argumentation. If it is a small-scale study with a sample size of only 10 patients then even ordinary people can question its reliability. Even if the sample size is large enough; say, 200 or more; in order to reflect the whole population of the patients, subjects should be chosen and distributed anonymous and randomized. Without showing this vital information, the author fails to make this study convincing. More over, the compliance of the subjects in this study should also be taken in to consideration.

Even if all the factors mentioned above were statistically reliable, the author still cannot convince me for he ignores the possibility that other factors than antibiotics attribute to the recovery of injury. For example the two doctors are not specialized in the same discipline. Maybe the former doctor specialized in sports medicine is much more experienced in treating muscle injury patients than the latter, general physician. Therefore maybe antibiotics are not a crucial key in the recovery of the patients, but the doctor is. To rule out this possibility, two more groups of patients should be set. One is a group with the help of Dr. Newland and no antibiotics; the other is a group with the treatment of Dr. Alan combining antibiotics. And then the four groups would be compared at the recovery time.

Last but not least, he says that doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. But after citing the trail he then claims that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. On the one hand although the study can shed light on the appliance of antibiotics in treating muscle injury, it cannot necessarily illustrate that it is because of antibiotics cure second-infections that spend up the recovery. On the other hand, is it suitable to extend the boundary of using antibiotics to all the patients for only some of them may have secondary infection? Should the side effects and the complications of antibiotics appliance be considered in the argumentation? Is there any other means to treat muscle injury that is equally effective as or even more useful than the antibiotics? Or are there other factors that hinder the recovery of patients? Unless answering these and other questions alike, the author's assertion amounts to nothing in my opinion.