Argument51【SWEETBOX小组】第五次作业

jiangyue011UID: 2340595

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: 459          TIME: 00:35:00          DATE: 2007-6-23 10:46:37

In this analysis, the arguer suggests that all patients suffered muscle strain should partly take antibiotics in order to prevent secondary infections. The argument is based on several logical flaws and a better and thorough investigation of the argument is necessary before this proposal would be accepted.

First of all, the study of two groups of patients, mainly on which this argument depends on, does not ensure the efficiency of antibiotics in curing muscle injures. The arguer fails to rule out the distinct characteristics of the two groups. It is entirely possible that patients the group treated by Dr. Newland are stronger, healthier and have a better psychological state than the other group. Perhaps, for example, the first group is consisted of robust athletes while the latter is made up of young children, old people, or women.  If so, it is naturally acceptable that the first group will have a shorter recuperation time than the latter.  Further, the arguer does not provide any information about the proficiency of the two doctors. It is very likely that Dr. Newland specializing in sports medicine are far more professional than Dr. Alton, a general physician, in healing muscle strain.

Another drawback of this argument is that it does not take into account the medicines the two groups of patients taken. Without such information, one has good reason to suspect that sugar pills does not have much contribution to the recuperation time, or even they have side effects to the patients that prevent the patients from recuperation. If this is the case, the analogy between antibiotics and sugar pills is unfair, considering there are a myriad of other medicines that might help the patients step out of the muscle pain. Thus, it is necessary to compare the efficiency of antibiotics and other medicines before this suggestion be adopted.

Thirdly, even if we accede the efficiency of antibiotics,  the arguer could not draw a conclusion that all patients, no matter young or elder, women or men, should take antibiotics. We should at least first take into account the side effect of antibiotics. It is entirely possible that some patients, like young children, pregnant women could not be advised to take such medicine simply because their immune system could not bear the side effect of antibiotics. Also, the arguer does not differentiate the severity of muscle strains. Heavily injured patients might have secondary infections and it is necessary for them to take antibiotics while patients with slight muscle strain is not needed to take them because secondary infections has little chance to happen-- and they might need no medicines because they can cure themselves.

In conclusion, the arguer does not succeeded in providing forceful argumentation and thus the conclusion is not well reasoned as it stands.

限制时间都没时间写结尾了，呵呵。

seventeenUID: 2293819

In this analysis, the arguer suggests that all patients suffered muscle strain should partly take antibiotics in order to prevent secondary infections. The argument is based on several logical flaws and a better and thorough investigation of the argument is necessary before this proposal would be accepted.

First of all, the study of two groups of patients, mainly on which this argument depends on[是不是多了一个on], does not ensure the efficiency of antibiotics in curing muscle injures. The arguer fails to rule out the distinct characteristics of the two groups. It is entirely possible that patients [of]the group treated by Dr. Newland are stronger, healthier and have a better psychological state than the other group. Perhaps, for example, the first group is consisted of robust athletes while the latter is made up of young children, old people, or women.  If so, it is naturally acceptable that the first group will have a shorter recuperation time than the latter.  Further, the arguer does not provide any information about the proficiency of the two doctors. It is very likely that Dr. Newland specializing in sports medicine are [is] far more professional than Dr. Alton, a general physician, in healing muscle strain.

Another drawback of this argument is that it does not take into account the medicines [taken by]the two groups of patients taken[如果按前面修改，那此处就不要了]. Without such information, one has good reason to suspect that sugar pills does not have much contribution to the recuperation time, or even they have side effects to the patients that prevent the patients from recuperation. If this is the case, the analogy between antibiotics and sugar pills is unfair, considering there are[is] a myriad of other medicines that might help the patients step out of the muscle pain. Thus, it is necessary to compare the efficiency of antibiotics and other medicines before this suggestion be adopted.

Thirdly, even if we accede the efficiency of antibiotics,  the arguer could not draw a conclusion that all patients, no matter young or elder, women or men, should take antibiotics. We should at least first take into account the side effect of antibiotics. It is entirely possible that some patients, like young children, pregnant women could not be advised to take such medicine simply because their immune system could not bear the side effect of antibiotics. Also, the arguer does not differentiate the severity of muscle strains. Heavily injured patients might have secondary infections and it is necessary for them to take antibiotics while patients with slight muscle strain is [are]not needed to take them because secondary infections has little chance to happen-- and they might need no medicines because they can cure themselves.

In conclusion, the arguer does not succeeded in providing [a]forceful argumentation and thus the conclusion is not well reasoned as it stands.

在这末短的时间写出这末好的文章，厉害。除了一些小毛病，其他都很不错。有很多地方值得学习

seventeenUID: 2293819

仔细看了一下，只改出了这末多，也不知对不对。:)