Argument51 抗生素vs二次感染 【近期高频！互拍！】 [Spining Sep]

MagicGlaiveUID: 2112081

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: 550          TIME: 0:40:00          DATE: 2006-8-20

大致提纲：
1.        作者没有证明严重肌肉拉伤和二次感染之间有必然关联
2.        作者所援引的研究缺乏可信度（三个角度分析）
3.        作者的结论太过武断，没有充分考虑抗生素的副作用

In this argument, the author suggests that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support his suggestion, the author cites a control experiment conducted by different doctors. However, this argument bases on an inconvincible experiment and suffers from a series of poor assumptions and cause-effect fallacies, which render it wholly unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the author basically uses an assumption that secondary infections will necessarily happen, but he do not give any evidence that the secondary infection would happen on those who suffer from severe muscle strain or this kind of patient are easier to get it. Perhaps there is some other reason that prevent severe muscle strain patient from healing quickly such as insufficient nutrition is provided during their healing or this kind of disease do need a long time to cure. So the significance of doing such an experiment and giving out a suggestion might be even meaningless.

Moreover, the argument is greatly weakened by the study giving as an evidence of the suggestion. Firstly, the arguer failed to provide any detailed information about those patients in different group such as age, gender and other physical conditions. It is possible that the first group contains mainly some younger patient while the other group consists of older ones, which would make the control experiment totally inconvincible. Secondly, the two doctors of each group are also different. The first group of people is treated by a doctor full of experience in muscle injuries while the second group's doctor is only a general physician who might be lack of muscle cure experience. This difference in doctor would also shake the reliability of the study. Thirdly, the second group are provided some sugar pills but the author did not give any information to illustrate that those pills wouldn't do harm to their disease. Perhaps the most important thing in curing severe muscle injuries is not giving the patients sweet things but it is omitted by the general physician because he know little about muscle injured treatment. From above, we can see that such a study is not credible at all though it takes a control experiment. So the suggestion which is totally based on the study, are to be put into doubt.

Finally, the author's suggestion is too limited since he didn't consider the other effects that antibiotics would take to those severe muscle strain patient. Perhaps an overdose of antibiotics would aggravate their illness instead of getting better, or perhaps some patients are even allergic to antibiotics and to those people even a small dose of antibiotics would cost their lives.

To sum up, the suggestion is not very supported. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide clear evidence that severe muscle injured patients would suffer or easier to get secondary infections. The author must also give out a more convincible study or survey to support his suggestion---maybe he could conduct a control experiment with similar background patients into two groups with the same doctor, and provide the two groups with antibiotics and something testified harmless. Finally, to better evaluate the argument, I would need to know more about the other side-effects that antibiotics would take to our severe muscle injured patients.

flycc28UID: 2164453

To begin with, the author basically uses an based on assumption that secondary infections will necessarily happen, but he does not give any evidence that the secondary infection would happen on those who suffer from severe muscle strain or this kind of patient are easier to get it. Perhaps there is some other reason that prevent severe muscle strain patient from healing quickly such as insufficient nutrition is provided during their healing or this kind of disease do need a long time to cure. So the significance of doing such an experiment and giving out a suggestion might be even meaningless.
我第一次写看网上的提纲也把这个错误写了一段,但是写的时候就发现连贯性不强,跟下文其实没什么联系,放在第一段很容易影响全文的逻辑.下午看了一些文章后发现,这个错误最好还是一带而过就好.


Moreover, the argument is greatly weakened by the study giving as an evidence of the suggestion. Firstly, the arguer failed to provide any detailed information about those patients in different groups such as age, gender and other physical conditions. It is possible that the first group contains mainly some younger patient while the other group consists of older ones, which would make the control experiment totally inconvincible. Secondly, the two doctors of each group are also different. The first group of people is treated by a doctor full of experience in muscle injuries while the second group's doctor is only a general physician who might be lack of muscle cure experience. This difference in doctor would also shake?undermine or weaken更好 the reliability of the study. Thirdly, the second group are provided some sugar pills but the author did not give any information to illustrate that those pills wouldn't do harm to their disease. Perhaps the most important thing in curing severe muscle injuries is not giving the patients sweet things but it is omitted by the general physician because he know little about muscle injured treatment. From above, we can see that such a study is not credible at all though it takes a control experiment. So the suggestion which is totally based on the study, are to be put into doubt.
大头放第一段

Finally, the author's suggestion is too limited since he didn't consider the other effects that antibiotics would take to those severe muscle strain patient. Perhaps an overdose of antibiotics would aggravate their illness instead of getting better, or perhaps some patients are even allergic to antibiotics and to those people even a small dose of antibiotics would cost? their lives.