Argument51【07-10G Superstar大帖】第次作业 by Huaxinluobo

huaxinluoboUID: 2326780

In this argument the writer suggest that patients with muscle strain take antibiotics as part of treatment based on the result of a study of two groups of patients. However, after scrutiny I find both the study and the suggestion are problematic.

First of all, the writer assumes that the muscle injuries are equal to severe muscle strain and that the antibiotics are effective to those potential infections. But without more evidence the assumptions are not substantiated. Common sense tells me that muscle strain is merely one kind of muscle injuries. So it is entirely possible that patients in the study are not suffer from muscle strain but some other muscle injuries that will not cause infection at all, in which case the result of the study is much less convincing. Moreover, since it is not prove that the antibiotics can prevent or eliminate the bacteria that cause secondary infections, even if it is proven that antibiotics may accelerate the recuperation in the study, it does not necessarily mean that secondary infection exists and hampers recuperation.

Secondly, even if the assumptions mentioned above is reasonable, the writer unfairly get the conclusion that secondary infection keep some patients from healing quickly while ignoring other possible reason. If the conditions of muscle injuries of the two groups of patients are different, for example, maybe the first group is less injured and in a better condition, maybe the age of the first group is much lower, all of which could lead to the result. Then whether the antibiotics are useful is uncertain. Moreover, the doctors in the two group are in different subjects, which means that their treatment beyond antibiotics maybe different. It is entirely possible that it is Dr. Newland’s   treatment is better than Dr. Alton’s , which contributes to the quicker healing of the first group. Without ruling out these possibilities the conclusion that antibiotics is beneficial in the treatment.

Thirdly, the speaker goes to the suggestion too hastily, even if the secondary infection is proved and antibiotics are effective in recuperation of severe muscle strain. Although antibiotics is useful to severe muscle strain, no evidence is given to prove that it is also useful for muscle strain that are not severe, thus it is unreasonable to suggest all patients with muscle strain take antibiotics. Meanwhile, by offering the suggestion the writer ignore some caution about the use of antibiotics. To those who are sensitive to antibiotics or vulnerable to the side effects of antibiotics the suggestion is not appropriate. So the suggestion is not qualified in many aspects.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive for the flaws.   

[ 本帖最后由 huaxinluobo 于 2007-7-3 00:34 编辑 ]

laura001UID: 2295927

In this argument the writer suggest that patients with muscle strain take antibiotics as part of treatment based on the result of a study of two groups of patients. However, after scrutiny I find both the study and the suggestion are problematic.

First of all, the writer assumes that the muscle injuries are equal to severe muscle strain and that the antibiotics are effective to those potential infections. But without more evidence the assumptions are not substantiated. Common sense tells me that muscle strain is merely one kind of muscle injuries. So it is entirely possible that patients in the study are not suffer from (2动词)muscle strain but some other muscle injuries that will not cause infection at all, in which case the result of the study is much less convincing. Moreover, since it is not prove(动词2个) that the antibiotics can prevent or eliminate the bacteria that cause secondary infections, even if it is proven that antibiotics may accelerate the recuperation in the study, it does not necessarily mean that secondary infection exists and hampers recuperation.

Secondly, even if the assumptions mentioned above is reasonable, the writer unfairly get (+S)the conclusion that secondary infection keep some patients from healing quickly while ignoring other possible reason. If the conditions of muscle injuries of the two groups of patients are different, for example, maybe the first group is less injured and in a better condition, maybe the age of the first group is much lower, all of which could lead to the result. Then whether the antibiotics are useful is uncertain. Moreover, the doctors in the two group are in different subjects, which means that their treatment beyond antibiotics maybe different. It is entirely possible that it is Dr. Newland’s   treatment is better than Dr. Alton’s , which contributes to the quicker healing of the first group. Without ruling out these possibilities the conclusion that antibiotics is beneficial in the treatment. (后面说法我赞同,但是前面的,对于2个样本一致性--受伤的轻重,我觉得这点基本常识他应该懂. 不可能一个重伤一个轻伤来比较.因此这点批驳不? 先保留意见.有人写过一篇要不要批驳SURVEY的文章,你可以看下,就有说到,要不要一上来就对一些常识批驳,把作者当作什么都不知道,这点我也不太清楚,我们可以再讨论下) 你可以说可能2组的人身体素质不一样...

Thirdly, the speaker goes to the suggestion too hastily, even if the secondary infection is proved and antibiotics are effective in recuperation of severe muscle strain. Although antibiotics is useful to severe muscle strain, no evidence is given to prove that it is also useful for muscle strain that are not severe, thus it is unreasonable to suggest all patients with muscle strain take antibiotics. Meanwhile, by offering the suggestion the writer ignore(+S) some caution about the use of antibiotics. To those who are sensitive to antibiotics or vulnerable to the side effects of antibiotics the suggestion is not appropriate. So the suggestion is not qualified in many aspects.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive for the flaws  (结尾多写点,少了点)


总体上还可以,我还找个错误是 糖丸是不是有副作用,没有证据(这个自己本身也觉得糖没有什么副作用,也没有服用其他什么,所以不确定).

[ 本帖最后由 laura001 于 2007-7-10 21:31 编辑 ]