argument51 第三次作业

ghost33UID: 2267869

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."


In this newsletter, the writer claimed that the long suspection that secondary infections may impede some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain has been proved by preliminary results of a study of two group of patients who were treated by two doctors in two different ways: one took antibiotics regularly while the other not. The group taken antibiotics regularly recuperated 40 percent more quickly than typically expected on average and the other group's recuperation time had no significantly change. Based on these results, the writer drew the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, after careful consideration, this newsletter is not well substantiated which makes it unconvincing.

Since this newsletter mainly based on the study, the validity of the study is most important. However, there are several aspects of the study not as clear as it should be.

First, let’s take the similarity of the two groups of patients in the study into consideration. When we do experiments on more than one group with different treatments, the groups in experiment should be at the same stage. But the newsletter provides no evidence that the health and the state of the muscle injuries of the two groups of patients in the study were as similar as needed. Given that the group treated by Dr. Newland was made of juveniles while the group of Dr. Alton was at a inferior age on average, or that most of the members of the group treated with sugar pills injured more severely than the other group, ascribing the no change recover time to the absence of antibiotics will be doubted.

Second, the ability of the two doctors who conducted the study gives another doubtion about the study. As the newsletter showed that Dr. Newland is a specialist on sports medicine while Dr. Alton is a general physician, their abilities in treating such muscle injuries would have some difference as common sense tells me. With more experiences in treating muscle injured patients and more information about the sports medicine, Dr. Newland surely could give his patients the most effective treatment which may be the crucial reason why the patients of him recover more quickly. Without ruling out this possibility, the study will be unreliable at all.

Third, whether the treatment of antibiotics had any effect is doubtful. Since the newsletter gave no information about the possibility of infection of the two groups, it is possible that the circumstances the group of Dr. Newland in were more open to infection while the group of Dr. Alton was in a condition free of infection. Given this, the treatment of antibiotics has no special effect on the recuperation of the patients.

Given the study conducted in a correct way, whether the number of the members taking part in the study is large enough to get a generalized conclusion remains another problem. Since the writer provides no information about the patients’ number, it is quite possible that the two groups have a sharp difference in numbers. Only one patient treated by any doctor could get a shorter or longer recuperate time. However, Such results have no meaning when we wish to draw further generalizations based on them. Thus, given this is the case, the study’s result would be better remain dubious.

Even the study itself is reliable, we cannot conclude that the treatment of antibiotics is true to every patients diagnosed with muscle strain. The average recover time of Dr. Newland’s group did be reduced. However, it is not necessary that each member got a shorter recovering time. Common sense tells me that given some members got a quite short recovering time, even if some members’ recuperate time prolonged, we can still get a shorter average recovering time. If this is the case, we should constrain the use of antibiotics to a smaller coverage.

In conclusion, the argument in the newsletter needs a careful substantiation. To better support the proof, we need more information about the validity of the study such as the similarity of the state of health and injuries between the two groups and whether the circumstances were free of infection. What’s more, the result of experiments, with more participants, conducted by a same doctor would be more convincing.

菲子UID: 2311527

In this newsletter, the writer claimed that the long suspection that secondary infections may impede some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain has been proved by preliminary results of a study of two group of patients who were treated by two doctors in two different ways: one took antibiotics regularly while the other not. The group taken antibiotics regularly recuperated 40 percent more quickly than typically expected on average and the other group's recuperation time had no significantly change. Based on these results, the writer drew the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. However, after careful consideration, this newsletter is not well substantiated which makes it unconvincing.

Since this newsletter mainly based on the study, the validity of the study is most important. However, there are several aspects of the study not as clear as it should be.

First, let’s take the similarity of the two groups of patients in the study into consideration. When we do experiments on more than one group with different treatments, the groups in experiment should be at the same stage. But the newsletter provides no evidence that the health and the state of the muscle injuries of the two groups of patients in the study were as similar as needed. Given that the group treated by Dr. Newland was made of juveniles while the group of Dr. Alton was at a inferior age on average, or that most of the members of the group treated with sugar pills injured more severely than the other group, ascribing the no change recover time to the absence of antibiotics will be doubted.

Second, the ability of the two doctors who conducted the study gives another doubtion about the study. As the newsletter showed that Dr. Newland is a specialist on sports medicine while Dr. Alton is a general physician, their abilities in treating such muscle injuries would have some difference as common sense tells me. With more experiences in treating muscle injured patients and more information about the sports medicine, Dr. Newland surely could give his patients the most effective treatment which may be the crucial reason why the patients of him recover more quickly. Without ruling out this possibility, the study will be unreliable at all.

Third, whether the treatment of antibiotics had any effect is doubtful. （这个总述句不够具体，这个句子表示了我们主要驳斥的论点）Since the newsletter gave no information about the possibility of infection of the two groups, it is possible that the circumstances the group of Dr. Newland in were more open to infection while the group of Dr. Alton was in a condition free of infection. Given this, the treatment of antibiotics has no special effect on the recuperation of the patients.(原文需要证明的不就是是否存在二次感染吗？作者并没有把感染作为一个论据（这个还是你在给我的修改里面说的呢）)

Given the study conducted in a correct way, whether the number of the members taking part in the study is large enough to get a generalized conclusion remains another problem. Since the writer provides no information about the patients’ number, it is quite possible that the two groups have a sharp difference in numbers. Only one patient treated by any doctor could get a shorter or longer recuperate time. However, Such results have no meaning when we wish to draw further generalizations based on them. Thus, given this is the case, the study’s result would be better remain dubious.

Even the study itself is reliable, we cannot conclude that the treatment of antibiotics is true to every patients diagnosed with muscle strain. The average recover time of Dr. Newland’s group did be reduced. However, it is not necessary that each member got a shorter recovering time. Common sense tells me that given some members got a quite short recovering time, even if some members’ recuperate time prolonged, we can still get a shorter average recovering time. If this is the case, we should constrain the use of antibiotics to a smaller coverage.

In conclusion, the argument in the newsletter needs a careful substantiation. To better support the proof, we need more information about the validity of the study such as the similarity of the state of health and injuries between the two groups and whether the circumstances were free of infection. What’s more, the result of experiments, with more participants, conducted by a same doctor would be more convincing.

我觉得整体思路还是很清晰的，除了第3个分论点有点问题。值得我学习。合作愉快！