argument51

pepperprinceUID: 2230983

51.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."
The arguer asserts that patients suffering from muscle strain be advised to take antibiotics to reduce the recuperation. He unfairly assumes that secondary infections prolong patients’ recuperation after severe muscle strain and taking antibiotics obviously help patients to recover quickly. He cites the result of a study on two groups of patients, in which one group taking antibiotics regularly spend less time to heal, than the other group which take sugar pills instead, by 40%. A close scrutiny on these evidences, however, revere how groundless the argument is.

A threshold problem with this recommendation involves that the arguer fails to prove that the recuperation shrinks as a result of the regular use of antibiotics. With Dr. Newland specialized in sports medicine and Dr. Alton working as a general physician, it is entirely possible that two doctors treated their patients in their own way respectively, and the different treatments lead to the different recuperations. Besides, other factors such as, environment, diet and recreation also play a vital role in patients’ recovery. Without ruling out the alternative explanations for the reduced recuperation, the arguer cannot convince me the magnificent part antibiotics play in treating muscle strain, let alone the recommendation for patients to take it as a part of treatment.

Even if antibiotics indeed shorten the recovery period, the arguer further assumes that the secondary infections should be responsible for the prolonged recuperation. Doctors suspect that the secondary infections may prevent patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, but the antibiotics’ effect proved by the study do not indicate that it works to resist and cure secondary infections in the treatment for severe muscle strain. Until the arguer provide clear evidence that antibiotics reduce recuperation by resisting or curing secondary infections, the result of the study hardly suffices to support the arguer’s assumption.

Finally, the arguer commits a fallacy of overgeneralization. He rushes to the conclusion that all the patients suffering from severe muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics, overlooking other factors. Firstly, perhaps antibiotics do not fit for everyone, and it may prove counterproductive for some individuals to take as a part of treatment. Secondly, the arguer has not provided any information about the price of antibiotics, and it might be too expensive for certain people. Therefore, without accounting for other factors that contribute to the use of antibiotics, the arguer cannot justify the conclusion.

In sum, to bolster his recommendation the arguer must provide firm evidence that antibiotics along result in the reduced recuperation. He also need to make sure how antibiotics works in the treatment to justify the assertion that secondary infections prevent patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. To better evaluate his recommendation for patients to take antibiotics regularly, I would need more information about the side-effect and price of antibiotics.

paburawUID: 2204657

The arguer asserts that patients suffering from muscle strain be advised （这边的这个被动用的不好，直接说the arguer advises the patients suffering from…）to take antibiotics to reduce the recuperation.（句子意思说反了，减少恢复？？） He unfairly assumes that secondary infections prolong patients’ recuperation after severe muscle strain and taking antibiotics obviously help patients to recover quickly. He cites the result of a study on two groups of patients, in which one group taking antibiotics regularly spend less time to heal, than the other group which take sugar pills instead, by 40%.（这句语法有问题，看着看我都晕了，而且连着3句都是以同一个主语开头，建议改改） A close scrutiny on these evidences, however, revere how groundless the argument is（好严重的说法）.

A threshold problem with this recommendation involves that the arguer fails to prove that the recuperation shrinks as a result of the regular use of antibiotics. With Dr. Newland specialized（为什么是-ed,该是-ing?） in sports medicine and Dr. Alton working as a general physician, it is entirely possible that two doctors treated their patients in their own way respectively, and the different treatments lead to the different recuperations. Besides, other factors such as, environment, diet and recreation (休息用rest吧？这个词是娱乐，消遣的意思，或者我不知道？)also play a vital role in patients’ recovery. Without ruling out the alternative explanations for the reduced recuperation, the arguer cannot convince me the magnificent part antibiotics play in treating muscle strain, let alone the recommendation for patients to take it as a part of treatment.

Even if antibiotics indeed shorten the recovery period, the arguer further assumes that the secondary infections should be responsible for the prolonged recuperation. Doctors suspect that the secondary infections may prevent patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, but the antibiotics’ effect proved by the study do not indicate that it works to resist and cure secondary infections in the treatment for severe muscle strain. Until the arguer provide clear evidence that antibiotics reduce recuperation by resisting or curing secondary infections, the result of the study hardly suffices to support the arguer’s assumption.（说抗生素不是用来治疗二次感染？？？强牵啊，）

Finally, the arguer commits a fallacy of overgeneralization. He rushes to the conclusion that all the patients suffering from severe muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics, overlooking other factors. Firstly, perhaps antibiotics do not fit for everyone, and it may prove counterproductive for some individuals to take as a part of treatment. Secondly, the arguer has not provided any information about the price of antibiotics, and it might be too expensive for certain people. （说抗生素太贵？？好象也很难站住脚哦）Therefore, without accounting for other factors that contribute to the use of antibiotics, the arguer cannot justify the conclusion.

In sum, to bolster his recommendation the arguer must provide firm evidence that antibiotics along（是alone） result in the reduced recuperation. He also need to make sure how antibiotics works in the treatment to justify the assertion that secondary infections prevent patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. To better evaluate his recommendation for patients to take antibiotics regularly, I would need more information about the side-effect and price of antibiotics 结尾太长了吧
时间还有抓紧练习吧，第二点找得不好，句子变化不多，这个千万注意下。

可以攻击下，文章说的是严重的肌肉拉伤病人，最后却变成所以肌肉拉伤的病人，这点一定要攻击哈，