Argument51 【0710G-HIT坚持交作业小组作文大帖】第三次作业

doris_gxcUID：2370933

二次感染妨碍康复  抗生素减少二次感染  使用抗生素能更快康复
1.实验结论不可靠：variable
医生不一样 治疗方法不一样 alternative therapy
2.实验不能支持假设
3.草率推广和anti hoc：抗生素的副作用（长期效应）

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: 386          TIME: 00:38:07          DATE: 2007-8-1 21:16:01

The scientific method used by the author to support the suggestion is worthy of extolling, but the flaws in the evident and reasoning process make the conclusion ridiculous.

The threshold problem is due to the study of two groups of patients, in which the author used the result to prove the hypothesis that secondary infections give a opposite effect on patients' recover from muscle strain. The deduction is under the assumption that antibiotic using can reduce the happening of secondary infections. In fact, if the experiment can real prove the hypothesis, another premise is needed that certain ratio of infection and normal is kept stable in the two groups. Otherwise, the number of infections during the study must be given to clarify the relationship between infections and antibiotic using. Thus, the indirect relevance may be showed to prove the hypothesis.

Moreover the study itself exist crucial defects. As we know, the variables in a experiment are required to be simple and easy measured. Since the using of antibiotic the not the only variable in the two groups, other factors that differ between the experiment group and the control one should be taken in consideration. For example, the doctors in the two group belong to totally different style, one is specializes in sports medicine and the other is just a general physician. Therefore the method they cure the patients must be different. Dr. Newland, the specialist, may know some alternative therapies like massage which is proved to be effective to muscle strain. As a result, the function massage exerted on the shortening of recuperation time is greater than antibiotic did. Consequently, if others want to recover from the disease they need not only take antibiotic drugs but also have Dr. Newland to be their doctor.

Last but not the least, the author is lack of caution to advice all the patients suffer from muscle strain to use antibiotics. As we known, antibiotics can kill the bacterium and at the same time lead to a weakening of immune system in human body. If the patient is already lack of the ability to practice self protection, a long term using of antibiotic may destroy his immune system thoroughly. In fact, any suggestion on drug using has some risks. Thus, the conclusion of this newsletter is hasty and even ridiculous.

xsr6064UID：2312664

The scientific method used by the author to support the suggestion is worthy of extolling, but the flaws in the evident and reasoning process make the conclusion ridiculous.

The threshold problem is due to the study of two groups of patients, in which the author used the result to prove the hypothesis that secondary infections give a opposite effect on patients' recover from muscle strain. The deduction is under the assumption that antibiotic using can reduce the happening of secondary infections. In fact, if the experiment can real prove the hypothesis, another premise is needed that certain ratio of infection and normal is kept stable in the two groups. Otherwise, the number of infections during the study must be given to clarify the relationship between infections and antibiotic using.(能力有限，我实在是没有明白楼主的意思。楼主是想说“病人的数量不明确"，还是说“要防止交叉感染“？如果楼主有回复，我们还可以再讨论一下。) Thus, the indirect relevance may be showed to prove the hypothesis.

Moreover the study itself exist crucial defects. As we know, the variables in a experiment are required to be simple and easy measured.(是不是“需要大概估计一下“的意思？是的话generally会不会好点？) Since the using of antibiotic the not the only variable in the two groups, other factors that differ between the experiment group and the control one should be taken in consideration. For example, the doctors in the two group belong to totally different style, one is specializes in sports medicine and the other is just a general physician. Therefore the method they cure the patients must be different. Dr. Newland, the specialist, may know some alternative therapies like massage which is proved to be effective to muscle strain. As a result, the function massage exerted on the shortening of recuperation time is greater than antibiotic did.(这只是一种猜想，这里作为结论似乎不太恰当) Consequently, if others want to recover from the disease they need not only take antibiotic drugs but also have Dr. Newland to be their doctor.

Last but not the least, the author is lack of caution to advice all the patients suffer from muscle strain to use antibiotics. As we known, antibiotics can kill the bacterium and at the same time lead to a weakening of immune system in human body. If the patient is already lack of the ability to practice self protection, a long term using of antibiotic may destroy his immune system thoroughly. In fact, any suggestion on drug using has some risks. Thus, the conclusion of this newsletter is hasty and even ridiculous.(good!)

语言和结构都没有什么可说的。不过楼主似乎对每个缺点只讨论了一种可能性。我看过一个关于范文中的Argument的评论，上面说范文会针对每个缺点提出多个不合理的可能性。例如，如果说水污染，我们通常只会说说工厂的问题，但范文中会列出如，农业灌溉，生活污水未处理，上游原因，甚至水体富营养化等可能性（只是随便列举，不一定准确）。不过这也可能是个人风格问题。以上仅属个人意见，不当之处请见谅。

doris_gxcUID：2370933

another premise is needed that certain ratio between infected and uninfected should be kept stable in the two groups. Otherwise, the number of infections during the study must be given to clarify the relationship between infections and antibiotic using.
不知道这样改是不是好一点。
其实是我自己写之前没搞明白，写的时候思路就比较乱。实在是对读者不负责～

是这样的，一开始我以为这个实验到证明那个猜想完全是谬论。
因为首先正常情况通常都是没有发生二次感染，这样的话实验组和对照组一个用抗生素一个不用抗生素，不能得到一个没有二次感染，一个有二次感染的实验组和对照组。所以这个实验室完全没有用的。
但我想我要是这么说的话，是不是太狠了。
一棒子打死了。
后来就想，是不是应该承认，二次感染的发生是有一定比例的，这样就构成了间接变量：抗生素--二次感染--康复，而实验只能给出抗生素和康复的关系，真正要证明的二次感染和康复的关系是未知的。所以我说应该给出二次感染的数据。

中文说出来，逻辑就清楚多了
回头改好了再贴出来，谢谢你的评语

每次都是，想不清楚就写，写完了才想清楚……

xsr6064UID：2312664

其实我和楼主对这篇argument的感觉一样：实验到证明那个猜想完全是谬论，但我选择了直接否定作者论点和论据之间的关系，也是这个原因让我忽略了医师的不同可能带来的影响这一问题，召来修改人的疑问。不过你用中文说明的那个观点，如果没有专业知识，用英文真的很难说明，否则就是长篇大论。权当题目的问题了，呵呵。

手痒话多，勿怪。