argument51 加州阳光第7次作业，谢谢指教！

timboyUID: 193944

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."
WORDS: 162          TIME: 上午 12:14:39          DATE: 2006-7-5

The argument is well-presented but not thoroughly well-supported. By citing the study of two groups of patients, the author believes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well suggested to take antibiotics when thet are involved in the treatment. However, the argument provided has some critical defects in some aspects.

To begin with, the author makes an unfairly assumption that the patients who have severe muscle strain will surely or are much likely to get the secondary infection. However, no evidence proves this in the argument. If the patients are not easily to get the secondary infection, the study cited has little or even no assistance to the suggestion involving the treatment. Specifically, the healing after the severe muscle strain in the study may has little relationship to the token of antibiotics. To make the argument more convincing, the probability of the secondary infection after the severe muscle strain should be examined to make sure the study can be the compelling evidence of the conclusion.

Additionally, the study cited as evidence has some critical shortcomings. Specifically speaking, first of all, two groups are not treated equally. The first group of patients was treated by the doctor who specializes in sports medicine whereas the second group was treated by a general doctor. It is common believed that the treatments from professional doctors are often better than that from common doctors who are less professional. Consequently, it is entirely possible that the different results between two groups are due to the distinct doctors rather than the diverse token drugs because. Moreover, the details of two groups are not concerned. Perhaps the first group are mainly consists of the youth who naturally need short recuperation time whereas the second group were comprised mainly by the elder who naturally need long recuperation time. In addition, the sugar pills are not proved to have no effects on the recuperation time. Maybe insignificant change was due to the sugar pills.  
   
Even if the author endeavors to make the study more convincing, hasty suggestion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics is doubted. First, since the study focused only on the people who are severely muscle strained, the suggestion to the patients who get muscle strain in different extents is unconvincing. It is much possible that the patients who have slight muscle strain are not likely to get secondary infection. Therefore, the patients may not need any antibiotics. Even worse, the suggestion to get the antibiotics to these patients may eventually harm the patients. Furthermore, the harmful effects from the antibiotics to certain kinds of people are not mentioned. It is the truth that someone may feel very uncomfortable in one's stomach or skin when getting antibiotics. The suggestion may also be harmful to these kind of people.

In conclusion, to make the argument more compelling, the probability of the secondary infection after the severe muscle strain should be studied; moreover, the study should be more convincing. Finally, additional consideration of the particular group who cannot take the antibiotics should be involved in the suggestion

joey.liuUID: 2207101

The argument is well-presented but not thoroughly well-supported. By citing the study of two groups of patients, the author believes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well suggested to take antibiotics when thet are involved in the treatment. However, the argument provided (??) has some critical defects in some aspects.

To begin with, the author makes an unfairly (unfair) assumption that the patients who have severe muscle strain will surely or are much likely to get the secondary infection. However, no evidence proves this in the argument. If the patients are not easily to get the secondary infection, the study cited has little or even no assistance to the suggestion involving the treatment. Specifically, the healing after the severe muscle strain in the study may has little relationship to the token of antibiotics. To make the argument more convincing, the probability of the secondary infection after the severe muscle strain should be examined to make sure the study can be the compelling evidence of the conclusion.

Additionally, the study cited as evidence has some critical shortcomings. Specifically speaking(具体的说？), first of all, two groups are not treated equally. The first group of patients was treated by the doctor who specializes in sports medicine whereas the second group was treated by a general doctor. It is common believed that the treatments from professional doctors are often better than that from common doctors who are less professional. Consequently, it is entirely possible that the different results between two groups are due to the distinct doctors rather than the diverse token drugs because（？？）. Moreover, the details of two groups are not concerned. Perhaps the first group are mainly consists of the youth who naturally need short recuperation time whereas the second group were comprised mainly by the elder who naturally need long recuperation time. In addition, the sugar pills are not proved to have no effects on the recuperation time. Maybe insignificant change was due to the sugar pills.  
   
Even if the author endeavors to make the study more convincing, hasty suggestion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics is doubted. First, since the study focused only on the people who are severely muscle strained, the suggestion to the patients who get muscle strain in different extents is unconvincing. It is much possible that the patients who have slight muscle strain are not likely to get secondary infection. Therefore, the patients may not need any antibiotics. Even worse, the suggestion to get the antibiotics to these patients may eventually harm the patients. Furthermore, the harmful effects from the antibiotics to certain kinds of people are not mentioned. It is the truth that someone may feel very uncomfortable in one's stomach or skin when getting antibiotics. The suggestion may also be harmful to these kind of people.

In conclusion, to make the argument more compelling, the probability of the secondary infection after the severe muscle strain should be studied; moreover, the study should be more convincing. Finally, additional consideration of the particular group who cannot take the antibiotics should be involved in the suggestion

楼主考虑的全面周到。

但全文应该在每段首句重点突出本段主题，剩余部分说明解释这些中心，而本文这方面需要加强！