argument51 [清凉夏日一组作业贴]

helenlhhUID: 2127690

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: 426          TIME: 0:29:42          DATE: 2006-7-18

In this argument, the arguer support the hypothesis that secondary infections prevent patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain by offering the evidence of a study of two groups of patients. A careful examination of this argument would reveal several logical problems.

First of all, the comparing study group is absolutely in doubt. The hypothesis is about severe injuries, but we get know information from this argument about the degree of injury which might not match the hypothesis. Even if we can ignore this problem, the injury condition of the two groups had not be strictly be controlled, and perhaps largely differed. It is possible that patients in the second group are badly injured compared to the other group, then it sounds reasonable that their recovery needs more time. Moreover, the arguer fails to see other factors that may contribute to the recovery of patients. It might be the case that besides taking antibiotics, patients in the first group took other medicines or were given other special treatment which may be  effective for recovery. And we cannot expel the possibility that it is the sugar pills the patients took that aggravate their injury condition. All above can tell that the study of the two group is not convincing.

For another, even if we admit antibiotics are effective in the process of cure, but our point is to solve the problem of secondary infection. We should not consider it over simplistic that antibiotics are enough to deal with infection, if we do not care about some other factors that might cause infection, we cannot expect the patients to recover soon. For example, clean environment is required to cut off the original factor of infection.

Finally, the abuse of antibiotics may bring some problems. What if a patient takes too much antibiotics, it is possible that it will have some side effects that will bring other serious problem in the patients' later life. Unless we can prove antibiotics are free of side effect can we say it is safe to use it. Another, we should think about whether there will be other substitutes that is also effective but more safer and costs less than antibiotics, the hasty generalization may lead to other problems.

In sum, this argument is problematic. In order to strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide more detail about the two comparing groups and expel other factors that may attribute to the result. He may also convince us that antibiotics are safe enough and economically acceptable so that we can consider it a helpful medicine.

1、实验对照组的问题
2、prevent secondary infection 不能等同于使用抗生素
3、抗生素的副作用以及可能有其他更好的替代品

loryshuangUID: 2211255

In this argument, the arguer support the hypothesis that secondary infections prevent patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain by offering the evidence of a study of two groups of patients. A careful examination of this argument would reveal several logical problems.

First of all, the comparing study group is absolutely in doubt. The hypothesis is about severe injuries, but we get know information from this argument about the degree of injury which might not match the hypothesis. Even if we can ignore this problem, the injury condition of the two groups had not be strictly be controlled, and perhaps largely differed. It is possible that patients in the second group are badly injured compared to the other group, then it sounds reasonable that their recovery needs more time. Moreover, the arguer fails to see other factors that may contribute to the recovery of patients. It might be the case that besides taking antibiotics, patients in the first group took other medicines or were given other special treatment which may be  effective for recovery. And we cannot expel the possibility that it is the sugar pills the patients took that aggravate their injury condition. All above can tell that the study of the two group is not convincing.

For another, even if we admit antibiotics are effective in the process of cure, but our point is to solve the problem of secondary infection. We should not consider it over simplistic that antibiotics are enough to deal with infection, if we do not care about some other factors that might cause infection, we cannot expect the patients to recover soon. For example, clean environment is required to cut off the original factor of infection.

Finally, the abuse of antibiotics may bring some problems. What if a patient takes too much antibiotics,我觉得这个没有必要写 it is possible that it will have some side effects that will bring other serious problem in the patients' later life. Unless we can prove antibiotics are free of side effect can we say it is safe to use it.这句话放在前面比较照题,这样文章整体的逻辑性更强 Another, we should think about whether there will be other substitutes that is also effective but more safer and costs less than antibiotics, the hasty generalization may lead to other problems.

In sum, this argument is problematic. In order to strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide more detail about the two comparing groups and expel other factors that may attribute to the result. He may should 会不会好一点? also convince us that antibiotics are safe enough and economically acceptable so that we can consider it a helpful medicine.

我觉得你的整体逻辑还是很强了,只要注意一下小错误就行了.呵呵:)

loryshuangUID: 2211255

另外,我觉得helen你在重新组织一下第二点,感觉有点乱