argument154 【Goal to Reach Excellence小组】 第4次作业

瘦老鹰UID: 2439047

51The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep somepatients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis hasnow 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 antibioticsregularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average,40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, allbeing treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills,although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their averagerecuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients whoare diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as partof their treatment."

==========================================================================
修改后
In the newsletter, the author claims allpatients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised takeantibiotics as part of their treatment because the author believes thatsecondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severemuscle strain. To justify this conclusion, the arguer presents the results of astudy of two groups of patients. However, the argument suffers from severallogical flaws and is therefore unconvincing.

First of all, the arguer ignores the fact that there are two groups who aretreated by two doctors. Just as the author mentioned, the first group ofpatients we retreated by a doctor who specializes in sports medicine while thesecond group of people were treated by a general physician. Common sense tellsus that an expert in sports medicine would of course do better that than ageneral, so it is possible that the average recuperation time for the firstgroup was shorten because this group was treated by an expert.

Besides, even if there exists no difference between the two doctors, it is toohasty to draw a conclusion. The author fails to explain and rule out otherfactors that might account for the healing effect include ages, genders,physical conditions of patients. If the patients of the first group are allstrong teenagers, it is not surprise that they can recover faster thantypically expected.

In addition, the author ignores to consider the healing effect of the very kindof antibiotics that the first group taken. It is possible that the antibioticsthat were used in the healing process contain certain elements that can notonly restrain secondary infections but also help healing muscle strain. On theother hand, the result of the study can only show that this kind of antibioticscan quicken the treatment, but the author provide no evidence that other kindsof antibiotics also have such effect.

In conclusion, the author’s opinion that secondary infections may keep somepatients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain is not well supported.To bolster it, the author must show that both groups are treated by a samedoctor and there are not obvious differences between the two groups. And theauthor should also convince that most common-used kinds of antibiotics can helpto heal muscle strain but only this certain one.

[ 本帖最后由 瘦老鹰 于 2008-1-31 11:30 编辑 ]

jessicakingkingUID: 2379628

In the newsletter, the author claims all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised take antibiotics as part of their treatment because the author believes that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. To justify this conclusion, the arguer presents the results of a study of two groups of patients. However, the argument suffers from several logical flaws and is therefore unconvincing.

First of all, the arguer ignores the fact that there are two groups who are treated by two doctors. Just as the author mentioned, the first group of patients we retreated by a doctor who specializes in sports medicine while the second group of people were treated by a general physician. Common sense tells us that an expert in sports medicine would of course do better that than a general, so it is possible that the average recuperation time for the first group was shorten because this group was treated by an expert. 肌肉拉伤也未必都由运动引起的吧，专攻运动的医生就是这方面的专家？这样说不充分吧

Besides, even if there exists are no difference between the two doctors, it is too hasty to draw a conclusion. The author fails to explain and rule out other factors that might account for the healing effect include ages, genders, physical conditions of patients. If the patients of the first group are all strong teenagers, it is not surprise that they can recover faster than typically expected.

In addition, the author fails to ignore to consider fails to consider或者ignores to consider就可以了呵 the healing effect of the very kind of antibiotics that the first group taken. It is possible that the antibiotics that were used in the healing process contain something certain elements更具体一些 that can not only restrain secondary infections but also help healing muscle strain. On the other hand, the result of the study can only show that the this kind of antibiotics can quicken the treatment, but the author provide no evidence that other kinds of antibiotics also have such effect.

In conclusion, the author’s opinion that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain is no not well supported. To bolster it, the author must show that both groups a are retreated by a same doctor and there are not obvious difference between the two group. And the author should also convince that most common-used kinds of antibiotics can help healing help to heal muscle strain instead of a single one but only this certain one?.

基本错误已找到，再注意一下语言细节就好，如果能用具体的反例对驳论处进行些扩充更好啦，以上修改，仅供参考，如有不妥，还请见谅~

[ 本帖最后由 jessicakingking 于 2008-1-29 19:55 编辑 ]