argument51 by yzl_1988[April小组]

yzl_1988UID: 2372248

51The 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."

In this newsletter, the arguer concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify this conclusion the arguer states a proved hypothesis that secondary infections will keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and a study which support this hypothesis. But in my point of view, the conclusion is unconvincing for some important flaws.

First of all, is all patients suffer from severe muscle strain will have a secondary infections which were supposed to slow the healing process. Well, the arguer does not give that kind of information, thus, we can not be convinced by the conclusion which were based on this assumption. To better support the conclusion the arguer should at least tell us the percentage of having secondary infection after suffer from muscle strain.

Second, for an experiment to be accurate, it must be controlled perfectly, but this study is just controlled poorly. Let us see to the doctors first. Two groups with two different doctor, one is specializes in sports medicine, but the other is just a general physician. We can see that the treatment patients received will not be the same, and the result will not be accurate to convince us. Also, the arguer does not say anything about the age, sexual, health condition or any other factors which would affect the result of the study. It is possible that the health condition of the two groups is not the same, and it is the most important factor that affects the result of the study. Lastly, the arguer does not give us any detail of the sugar pills given to the second group. Thus, we can not know whether there is any side effect of that sugar pill. So, to better support the conclusion the arguer should give us a experiment controlled perfectly.

Lastly, the conclusion is given without thorough consideration. Many of us might be allergy to antibiotics. In this case, the using of antibiotics as an auxiliary to their treatment will be deadly. And I think the arguer should consider all the possible condition before he makes any conclusion.
In sum, the conclusion author give us is unconvincing. The arguer should do much more work, such as a perfectly controlled experiment, the percentage of secondary infection and a thorough consideration, before he make the conclusion.

In sum, the conclusion author give us is unconvincing. The arguer should do much more work, such as a perfectly controlled experiment, the percentage of secondary infection and a thorough consideration, before he make the conclusion.

九微火UID: 2343684

51The 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."

In this newsletter, the arguer concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify this conclusion the arguer states a proved hypothesis that secondary infections will keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, and a study which support this hypothesis. But in my point of view, the conclusion is unconvincing for some important flaws.

First of all, is all patients suffer from severe muscle strain will have a secondary infections which were supposed to slow（down） the healing process.? Well, the arguer does not give that kind of information, thus, we can not be convinced by the conclusion which were based on this assumption. To better support the conclusion the arguer should at least tell us the percentage of (people) having secondary infection after suffer (suffering) from muscle strain.

Second, for an experiment to be accurate, it must be controlled perfectly, but this study is just controlled poorly. Let us see (to去掉) the doctors first. Two groups with two different doctor, one is specializes in sports medicine, but the other is just a general physician. We can see that the treatment patients received will not be（are not） the same, and the result will not be accurate to convince us. Also, the arguer does not say anything about the age, sexual, health condition or any other factors which would affect the result of the study. It is possible that the health condition of the two groups is not the same, and it is the most important factor that affects the result of the study. Lastly, the arguer does not give us any detail of the sugar pills given to the second group. Thus, we can not know whether there is any side effect of that sugar pill. So, to better support the conclusion the arguer should give us a (an) experiment controlled perfectly.

Lastly, the conclusion is given without thorough consideration. Many of us might be allergy to antibiotics. In this case, the using of antibiotics as an auxiliary to their treatment will be deadly. And I think the arguer should consider all the possible condition before he makes any conclusion.
In sum, the conclusion author give us is unconvincing. The arguer should do much more work, such as a perfectly controlled experiment, the percentage of secondary infection and a thorough consideration, before he make (making) the conclusion.

In sum, the conclusion author give us is unconvincing. The arguer should do much more work, such as a perfectly controlled experiment, the percentage of secondary infection and a thorough consideration, before he make (making) the conclusion.

一点小瑕疵。总体不错。语言流畅，逻辑清晰。

yzl_1988UID: 2372248

谢谢修改，谢谢夸奖。

yzl_1988UID: 2372248

谢谢修改，谢谢夸奖。