argument51同主题写作，大家帮忙多拍拍哦，谢谢

vickeyyyUID: 2106179

Argument51
1） 这个结论的前提是不能得出结论的
2）这个研究是有问题的
3）另外， 医生的问题，糖丸的问题都可能影响结果
感觉有点又臭又长，呵呵，大家帮帮忙拍拍，而且要狠狠地拍哦
我也会帮你们拍的，大家互相帮忙，共同进步哦

Almost all the patients hope healing quickly from the diseases. Relying on a study of two groups, the author advises all the muscle strain patients to take antibiotics as part of treatment in order to recover as soon as possible. This medical newsletter seems to provide a better treatment for those muscle strain patients, however, the argument suffers from several critical flaws and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the author infers the conclusion that all the muscle strain patients should take antibiotics as part of their treatment upon on the hypothesis that doctors have suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after muscle strain. The hypothesis may be proved correct, but it is unreasonable to conclude the advise to all the muscle strain patients just basing on this potential hypothesis. The hypothesis only points to a group of patients sufferring from severe muscle strain and meanwhile sufferring from secondary infections. At this premise, the author can only provide advice to those certain group even if the hypothesis is justified. It is totally possible that the effective treatment for those patients sufferring from slight muscle strain or with no sign of infection is just to rest and to massage. If it is the case, the author's advise is a waste of money and to cause a potential hazard that some patients may be tortured by the severe side effects of antibiotics which they do not need to take as routine.

Secondly, resting on a study of two groups of patients, the author proves the hypothesis mentioned above is substantially justified. Unfortunately, the author offers no evidence to support that the study is statistical unreliable. The arguement does not mention about the number of the target group and the control. Perhaps the number is far from enough to ensure the study's reliability. Moreover, we cannot find any personal inforamtion about those participants, such as the age, the gender, the occupation, the healthy condition and even the condition of the muscle strain or whether they suffer from secondary infection. Without such crucial data, the author cannot ensure both the two groups is under the similar condition except the target factors, here, the antibiotics. Just imagining that, a healthy young man with any disease just a slight muscle strain should have a short recuperation time without doubt while it is also doubtless that an old lady with heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension suffers from a severe muscle strain and then may stay in bed for a long long time without prospective future. Therefore, the author cannot convince me unless proving the study is statistical reliable.

Additionally, another flaw of the study should be presented. The two groups of the study is directed by two doctors who specialize in different subjects. As the study mentions, the target group taking the antibiotics is supervised by the doctor who specializes in sports medicine, while the other doctor is a general physician. It is entirely possible that the specialist of sports medicine are good at take care of muscle strain patients and can give advice how to practice correctly in order to accelarate the healing. On the other hand, a general physician may be much less skillful than the specialist in this field. For that matter, the discrepancy between two doctors may play a key role in the treatment. Moreover, the sugar pills used in the control have unforeseen effects which may impact the outcomes.

To sum up, this argument is untenable and unconvincing at all. To bolster the argument, the author should provide detailed statictical evidence showing the two groups is under similar conditions exluding the target factors. The author should eliminate all the possible explanation such the role of doctors, the effects of the suger pills. Finally, in order to extend the hypothesis to all the muscle strain patients, the author should conduct more wide-range study.