ARGUMENT51 [Victors]小组第三次作业 by jennetrj

jennetrjUID: 2275453

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."

626 words

In this newsletter, the author recommends doctors to enroll antibiotics to treat all muscle strain patients. To justify this recommendation, the author claims doctors' high suspect of secondary infection to prolong muscle strain healing time in severe muscle strain patients. In addition, the author cites the research which could be considered as the evidence of such hypothesis. At first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but further reflection reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the reliability of the clinical study showed in the passage still opens to question. First, the data cited in the newsletter is too vague to be informative. There's no indication of how many patients were enrolled in the study and whether they could be the representative of the general. It is totally possible that only 10 patients were chosen in every group and they were just patients with minor muscle strain. Or hardly could the author prove that these patients were randomly grouped. Maybe patients in the control group happened to suffer from more severe muscle strain, or those ones headed for sports medicine just with minor injuries. Without such information, the author could not convince me to accept the assumption which is based on the problematic study.

If the study is reliable statistically, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between antibiotic usage and less healing time among patients treated by the sports medicine specialist. There are lots of factors that relate to the healing time, such as medical condition of the patients, strain severity and so on. Maybe most patients treated by the specialist were athletes who are strong enough to beat up the injury quickly, while others in control group were the old people not only got muscle strain but also had severe medical problems which might interfere the healing process, or even could be life threatening. With absence of eliminating or considering these possibilities, author's assumption that regular taking of antibiotics through treatment is an effective way to decrease healing time could not be taken seriously.

Furthermore, even if antibiotic usage all through treatment could reduce recuperation time in muscle strain patients, it doesn't necessarily mean that secondary infection would impede healing process. First, the author fails to indicate the healing time among patients with secondary infection after muscle strain. Maybe there's no significant difference of the healing time between those with secondary infection and people suffering from simple injury. Usually, people with secondary infection always get more concentration and better nursing so that they might get recovered even faster.  Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the conclusion that secondary infection would decrease the healing process among muscle strain patients.

Finally, the author overlooks the disadvantages of treating patients with antibiotics all through. It is well-known that abusive usage of antibiotics can introduce more medical problems, for instance, increasing bacterial resistance, which might do great harm to the human race and other creatures on Earth. And for some minor injured people, maybe topical medication or muscle relaxant could be the better choice. Until the author completes the analysis, the recommendation for any muscle strained patient to take antibiotics seems to be a hasty advice.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more information, such as case number, representativeness and comparability of the samples, to assure the reliability of the study. In addition, the author should establish the causal relationship between the usage of antibiotics and patients' quicker healing time, so does the relationship between secondary infection and delayed recover time. To better evaluate the argument, we need to know whether there are other disadvantages induced by antibiotic prescription and if it is necessary to do so for all patients with muscle strain.

乳虎UID: 2251211

In this newsletter, the author recommends doctors to enroll (enroll是登记使加入的意思,apply?)antibiotics to treat all muscle strain patients. To justify this recommendation, the author claims (claim是要求,请求,主张,声称,说明,断言的意思,欠妥,还是cite好一些吧) doctors' high(highly) suspect of secondary infection to prolong muscle strain healing time in severe muscle strain patients.(这句很别扭,还是同位语从句好些吧,suspect是嫌疑犯的意思,是不是换成concern忧虑) In addition, the author cites the research which could be considered as the evidence of such hypothesis(这个定语从句太罗嗦了as the evidence of the hypothesis即可,且这句没有说出什么实质性的内容,such好像没这么用的). At (the)first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but further reflection reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the reliability of the clinical study showed in the passage still opens to question. First, the data cited in the newsletter is too vague to be informative. There's no indication of how many patients were enrolled in the study and whether they could be the representative of the general(population统计学上总体的概念). It is totally (quite,equally)possible that only 10 patients were chosen in every group and they were just patients with minor muscle strain. (and后边的没用删去好了) Or (否则什么?)hardly could the author prove that these patients were randomly grouped. (为什么用倒装句) Maybe patients in the control group happened to suffer from more severe muscle strain, or those ones(who,删去ones) headed for sports medicine just with minor injuries. Without such information, the author could not convince me to accept the assumption which is based on the problematic study.

(Even)If the study is reliable statistically, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between antibiotic usage and less healing time among patients treated by the sports medicine specialist. There are lots of factors that relate to the healing time, such as medical condition of the patients, strain severity and so on. (Maybe most patients treated by the specialist were athletes who are strong enough to beat up the injury quickly, while others in control group were the old people not only got muscle strain but also had severe medical problems which might interfere the healing process, or even could be life threatening. )(Usually, people with secondary infection always get more concentration and better nursing so that they might get recovered even faster.)With absence of eliminating or considering these possibilities, author's assumption that regular taking of antibiotics through treatment is an effective way to decrease healing time could not be taken seriously. (这段批因果关系又在用样本本身的差异,似与上一段批样本随机性重复,且开头已假设了the study is reliable statistically,可否挖掘一下其他变量,比如说试验组可能配合了恢复性训练,而对照组没有,或是治疗过程中的其他可能的差异)

Furthermore, even if antibiotic usage all through treatment could reduce recuperation time in(of) muscle strain patients, it doesn't necessarily mean that secondary infection would impede healing process. First, the author fails to indicate the healing time (among )(of the)patients with secondary infection after muscle strain. Maybe there's no significant difference of the healing time between those with secondary infection and people suffering from simple injury. (Good point!)Usually, people with secondary infection always get more concentration and better nursing so that they might get recovered even faster.  Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the conclusion that secondary infection would decrease the healing process among muscle strain patients.(这段的论点本身逻辑上是错的,如果实验组和对照组的其他条件都相同,只有用没用抗菌素这一点不同,而抗菌素消除感染是没有疑问的,只要承认抗菌素使试验组康复时间缩短,那么轻度感染就一定会阻碍康复.而说感没感染没影响,只是由于医护人员的特殊照顾使实验组恢复得更快实际上推翻了段首已承认了的假设即确实是抗菌素使实验组康复时间缩短,到底是抗生素还是特殊照顾起作用?)
Finally, the author overlooks the disadvantages of (treating patientswith删) antibiotics all through. It is well-known that abusive usage(abuse即可) of antibiotics can introduce(engender) more medical(health) problems, for instance, increasing bacterial resistance, which might do great harm to the human race and other creatures on Earth. And for some minor injured people, maybe topical medication or muscle relaxant could be the better choice. Until the author completes the analysis, the recommendation for any muscle strained patient to take antibiotics seems to be a hasty advice.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands(能这么说吗?not so tenable as it stands). To consolidate it, the author should provide more information, such as case number, representativeness and comparability of the samples, to assure the reliability of the study. In addition, the author should establish the causal relationship between the usage of antibiotics and patients' quicker healing time, so does the relationship between secondary infection and delayed recover time. To better evaluate the argument, we need to know whether there are other disadvantages induced by antibiotic prescription and if it is necessary to do so for all patients with muscle strain.

jennetrjUID: 2275453

谢谢乳虎很仔细地批驳AW中的问题，许多是自己很容易忽略的。

有关倒数第三段的内容主要是说明即使抗菌素能缩短病人愈合时间，不能说明继发感染就会延长愈合时间，两者没有逻辑因果关系。理由一：命题中没有说明继发感染者愈合时间长（这点没有疑问）；理由二：继发感染者可能受到照顾多，重视多反而可能愈合的时间比没有感染的病人快；

我觉得此篇文章的此段问题在于缺了反例：抗生素可能同时具有促进愈合的作用，就像VIAGRA起初是希望通过研究应用于心血管疾病，结果发现对ED的良好治疗作用一样。简而言之就是A可使C变短，A可治疗B， 但不能推定B就使C变长。我在AW中没有表达清楚这层意思，可能容易使人误解批驳的逻辑理由不成立。
Anyhow, thank you for your critics!

无声的热情UID: 2744946

语言还是比较流畅，不过没有抓到重点，逻辑关系有点乱