Argu51 [shining sep作文组] 8.19

Ajax555UID: 2241288

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: 484          TIME: 0:53:49          DATE: 2006-8-19

In this argument, the arguer concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support the conclusion, the arguer indicate that many doctors suspects that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. In addition, the arguer give some preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. This argument suffers from several from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the precondition of this controlled trial is false. The probability of secondary infections do not occur certainly. And doctors just do suspect, but not make sure, that secondary infections are the causations of impeding patients healing quickly after severe muscle strain. The arguer can not assure that all patients in the test get secondary infections. This is a fatal error in the argument.

Furthermore, there are many other unreasonable hypothesises and conditions in the controlled trial. First, the arguer do not demonstrate that the two group of patients have the same age, sex, and health condition. Any difference of patients' physiological characteristics may cause the effect of recovering different. For example, The recovering ability of young group is much better  than that of the old group. Whether grouping is reasonable is unsure. Second, the doctors of two groups are different. One group is treated by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicie, and the other group is treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician. There is a possibility that the result which the first group recovers quickly than second group is caused by the specialization of Dr. Newland.  Because of his specialization, Dr. Newland may be good at curing severe muscle strain. He may have some better treatments, more experience than Dr. Alton. This is unfair. Third, the fact that the patients of the  first group take antibiotics, and the patients of second group take sugar pills can not strongly prove taking antibiotics can increase the average recuperation time significantly. Maybe the recuperation time is reduced by taking sugar pills, but not increased by taking antibiotics. Hence, it is cursory to claim that taking antibiotics can let patients recover from sever muscle strain quickly.

Finally, there is another problem in the argument. The arguer do not prove taking the antibiotics is completely safe to all people. Whether this antibiotic have any side effect, and what kind of people could take it are not mentioned in the argument. It is dangerous to advise patients to take the medicine which is not testified.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility beacuse the unequal cotrolled trial cited in the analysis does not leand strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide a same condition for the controlled trial. To better evaluate the argument, the patients for the controlled trial must be sure to have secondary infections.

flycc28UID: 2164453

First of all, the precondition of this controlled trial is false. The probability of secondary infections do not occur certainly. And doctors just do suspect, but not make sure, that secondary infections are the causations of impeding patients healing quickly after severe muscle strain. The arguer can not assure that all patients in the test get secondary infections. This is a fatal error in the argument.
这个...关于secondary infection你的写的比神剑写的清楚简洁 一些.但是我个人还是持保留意见.

Furthermore, there are many other unreasonable hypothesises and conditions in the controlled trial. First, the arguer does not demonstrate that the two groups of patients have the same age, sex, and health condition. Any difference of patients' physiological characteristics may cause the effect of recovering different. For example, The recovering ability of young group is much better  than that of the old group.这里还是最好指一下哪组young哪组old Whether grouping is reasonable is unsure这个不知妥不妥.

Second, the doctors of two groups are different. One group is treated by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicie, and the other group is treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician. There is a possibility that the result which the first group recovers more quickly than second group is caused by the specialization of Dr. Newland.  Because of his specialization, Dr. Newland may be good at curing severe muscle strain. He may have some better treatments, more experience than Dr. Alton. This is unfair. Third, the fact that the patients of the  first group take antibiotics, and the patients of second group take sugar pills can not strongly prove taking antibiotics can increase the average recuperation time significantly. Maybe the recuperation time is reduced by taking sugar pills, but not increased by taking antibiotics这样的话结果应该是第二组恢复的快啊... Hence, it is cursory to claim that taking antibiotics can let patients recover from sever muscle strain quickly.

Finally, there is another problem in the argument. The arguer does not prove taking the antibiotics is completely safe to all people. Whether this antibiotic have any side effect, and what kind of people could take it are not mentioned in the argument. It is dangerous to advise patients to take the medicine which is not testified.

问题基本上都找出来了 个人觉得第二段分三部分写太多,会让评分的人看不下去...
最好分开吧  
然后注意the arguer does

去资料贴看看~