argument51 [Jet小组]第四次作业

月亮熬的汤UID: 2382325

Argument 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.
WORDS: 429           TIME:          DATE: 2008-2-8

It is concluded in the argument that antibiotics, which can keep patients from secondary infections, should be advised to take for all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. To better support his assertion, the author cites the results of study of tow groups of patients. A careful examine would reveal how groundless this argument is.

First of all, this whole argument is based on an assumption that antibiotics can largely heal secondary infections, which may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. However, the author fails to provide any information about the relationship between the antibiotics and secondary infections. It is possible that the two are hardly related. As a result, this argument is unwarranted without necessary information.

Even if antibiotics and secondary infections are strongly related, the validity of the study is still highly suspicious. To begin with, there is insufficient evidence to show that the two groups concerned are comparable, which means they are of the similar age, gender, health condition and so on, and they are suffering similar degree of pain. There are possibilities that the patients of the first group, who recuperate quicker than expected, are all youth while the patients of the second group are all elderly people, who by nature recuperate slower. Second, the author fails to take into account the factor of doctors in this argument. The doctor of the first group, who specializes in sports medicine, very possibly masters more medical knowledge about muscle strain compared to the general physician of the second group. Moreover, as for the patients, they will surly be more delighted and confident when treated by a doctor specialized in the very field and the mental factor contributes to their speedy recuperation to some extent. Without ruling out all these possibilities, the author can not confidently draw that conclusion.

Even if the study is valid, the conclusion that all patients who suffered muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics still can not be drawn without adequate information. The side-effect of antibiotics is not mentioned by the author, which should not be neglected. There is a high possibility that some patients may be allergic to antibiotics, blindly advices on antibiotic to all patient will do large harm.

In sum, this argument suffers several crucial logical flaws. To make it more convincing, the author should provide sufficient information about antibiotics and secondary infections, and provide scientific studies to show that the antibiotics is the main factor that facilitates the recuperation of the patients under similar research circumstances, which includes similar doctors, symptoms and patients.

dreamstringUID: 2389201

It is concluded in the argument that antibiotics, which can keep patients from secondary infections, should be advised to take for all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain.(开头很清晰很漂亮！值得学习） To better support(应该是support ...better吧？) his assertion, the author cites the results of study of tow groups of patients. A careful examine would reveal how groundless this argument is.

First of all, this whole argument is based on an assumption that antibiotics can largely heal secondary infections, which may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. However, the author fails to provide any information about the relationship between the(删去) antibiotics and secondary infections. It is possible that the two are hardly related. As a result, this argument is unwarranted without(觉得这种写法欠妥，总觉得有点双重否定的意思，类似这一句你这样写是表达了这么一个意思：this argument is warranted with necessary information) necessary information.

Even if antibiotics and secondary infections are strongly related, the validity of the study is still highly suspicious. To begin with, there is insufficient evidence to show that the two groups concerned are comparable, which means they are of the similar age, gender, health condition and so on（想的真周到，我就没想到~~）, and they are suffering similar degree of pain. There are possibilities that the patients of the first group, who recuperate quicker than expected, are all youth while the patients of the second group are all elderly people, who by nature(这个by nature应该放在句末吧？或者干脆就写naturally) recuperate slower. Second, the author fails to take into account the factor of doctors in this argument. The doctor of the first group, who specializes in sports medicine, very possibly masters more medical knowledge about muscle strain compared to the general physician of the second group. Moreover, as for the patients, they will surly be more delighted and confident when treated by a doctor specialized in the very field and(还是并列连接的问题，见issue) the mental factor contributes to their speedy recuperation to some extent. Without ruling out all these possibilities, the author can not confidently draw that conclusion.

Even if the study is valid, the conclusion that all patients who suffered muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics still can not be drawn without(还是那个感觉上的双重否定的问题，我也只是有这种感觉，不一定对的) adequate information. The side-effect of antibiotics is not mentioned by the author, which should not be neglected. There is a high possibility that some patients may be allergic(我觉得如果没把握自己的背景知识是正确的话，还是不要写得太专业。过敏反应应该是蛋白质引起的，而这些抗生素是不是蛋白质并不确定。具体我也记不清了到底抗生素和蛋白质有没有关系，如果你确定有的抗生素的确是蛋白质的话，那么这样写“它可能引起过敏”是没有问题的：）) to antibiotics, blindly advices on antibiotic to all patient will do large harm(harmness).

In sum, this argument suffers several crucial logical flaws. To make it more convincing, the author should provide sufficient information about(加一个the relationship between较好) antibiotics and secondary infections, and provide scientific studies to show that the antibiotics is the main factor that facilitates the recuperation of the patients under similar research circumstances, which includes similar doctors, symptoms and patients.

总的来说，我觉得写的很精彩，思路清晰，调理分明。我写出来的那些地方适当留心一下就可以。
同时谢谢你帮我改作文！合作愉快：）