argument51 【Persistence小组】第5次作业

小驴子UID: 2222683

OPIC: 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."

In this argument, the author concludes that all patients with muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics during their treatment in order to reduce the happen of secondary infections. To support the argument, the arguer points out that secondary infections may prevent the patients from recovery, which is proved by a study of two groups of patients. A thorough examination of the letter would reveal that this argument contains several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing.

A threshold problem with the argument is that the conclusion is based on an unfounded prerequisite that some patients with severe muscle strain would not get better easier because of the secondary infections.  The reason showed by 2 following parts:
At first, the author claims that patients should take antibiotics to prevent the secondary infections. But no statistic or theoretic evidence shows that it is to take antibiotics that will decrease the happen chance of secondary infections. Antibiotics might be infect to bacteria whereas secondary infections might be caused by several other reasons, like the climate change, the virus invasion and so forth, with which antibiotics might have nothing to do.

Even if antibiotics have effect on preventing the secondary infections, the assertion, which advises that all patients with muscle strain should take the way to prevent the secondary infection mentioned, is also an arbitrary decision. Because the prerequisite shows that only some patients with severe muscle strain would be kept from healing quickly by secondary infection. The author makes the result so fast that he or she might ignore that not all patients would suffer from secondary infection, and if so, it is no use for all of them to take antibiotics to prevent the secondary infection. What's more, severe muscle strain is different from normal muscle strain. It might have some other complex disease which is more possible to cause a secondary infection and it might be more difficult for patients to recover from the former disease. Under this circumstance, patients with normal muscle strain might not have to take the antibiotics.


In addition, the evidence cited by the author also cannot support the hypothesis that secondary infections are the reason that keeps the patients from recovery after severe muscle strain. Firstly, the background of patients in two groups is not clearly showed. It is entirely possible that the first group of patients is all young and has a better immunity that the other patients, which is main reason that their recuperation time was 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Secondly, the first group of patients suffered from muscle injuries which are not severe muscle strain and the disease of other group of patients even not wrote in the argument. The recovery time of muscle injuries might be shorter itself than muscle strain. Or the second group of patients might have a more severe disease which would take more time to get over it. Thirdly, the doctor is different in the two groups. The doctor in the first group is Dr.Newland who specializes in sports medicine, whereas the other doctor is Dr.Alton, who is only a general physician. Dr.Newland might know more knowledge and have more experience in muscle disease, which would work out a treatment that make his patients recover more quickly.

What's more, taking antibiotics might have the side effect which might cause some other problems. For example, if taking antibiotics for a long time, the immunity level of the patients would get low and it might be easier for the invasion of other bacteria. Or it might lead to other more severe disease.

In sum, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must provide better evidence on whether the treatment is suitable and effective on other patients. I would also need to know the detail of the experiment and the side effect of antibiotics.

vinnieUID: 2104933

In this argument, the author concludes that all patients with muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics during their treatment in order to reduce the happen of secondary infections. To support the argument, the arguer points out that secondary infections may prevent the patients from recovery, which is proved by a study of two groups of patients. A thorough examination of the letter would reveal that this argument contains several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing.

A threshold problem with the argument is that the conclusion is based on an unfounded prerequisite that some patients with severe muscle strain would not get (better easier??) because of the secondary infections.  The reason showed by 2 following parts:
At first, the author claims that patients should take antibiotics to prevent the secondary infections. But no statistic or theoretic evidence shows that it is to take antibiotics that will decrease the happen chance of secondary infections（这里问下。抗生素不是可以防止感染么？）. Antibiotics might be infected to bacteria whereas secondary infections might be caused by several other reasons, like the climate change, the virus invasion and so forth, with which antibiotics might have nothing to do.

Even if antibiotics have effect on preventing the secondary infections, the assertion, which advises that all patients with muscle strain should take the way to prevent the secondary infection mentioned, is also an arbitrary decision. (Because在前面的话不能单独成一个句子吧？) the prerequisite shows that only some patients with severe muscle strain would be kept from healing quickly by secondary infection. The author makes the result so fast that he or she might ignore that not all patients would suffer from secondary infection, and if so, it is no use for all of them to take antibiotics to prevent the secondary infection. What's more, severe muscle strain is different from normal muscle strain. It might have some other complex disease which is more possible to cause a secondary infection and it might be more difficult for patients to recover from the former disease. Under this circumstance, patients with normal muscle strain might not have to take the antibiotics.


In addition, the evidence cited by the author also cannot support the hypothesis that secondary infections are the reason that keeps the patients from recovery after severe muscle strain. Firstly, the background of patients in two groups is not clearly showed. It is entirely possible that the first group of patients is all young and has a better immunity that(than) the other patients, which is main reason that their recuperation time was 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Secondly, the first group of patients suffered from muscle injuries which are not severe muscle strain and the disease of other group of patients even not wrote in the argument. The recovery time of muscle injuries might be shorter itself than muscle strain. Or the second group of patients might have a more severe disease which would take more time to get over it. Thirdly, the doctor is different in the two groups. The doctor in the first group is Dr.Newland who specializes in sports medicine, whereas the other doctor is Dr.Alton, who is only a general physician. Dr.Newland might know more knowledge and have more experience in muscle disease, which would work out a treatment that make his patients recover more quickly.(这段写的相当有气势啊，赞)

What's more, taking antibiotics might have the side effect which might cause some other problems. For example, if taking antibiotics for a long time, the immunity level of the patients would get low and it might be easier for the invasion of other bacteria. Or it might lead to other more severe disease.

In sum, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must provide better evidence on whether the treatment is suitable and effective on other patients. I would also need to know the detail of the experiment and the side effect of antibiotics.

这篇文章没什么好说的，作者的深厚的学术背景以及熟练的语言技巧都很好的展现出来了，有很强的说服力，关键是攻击点非常的全面~~。你的第三段就是我所能想到的所有的论点了，汗，加油哦~~~~