argument51 【7\8\9\10】 7.21(第一次作业) by buctcontrol

buctcontrolUID: 2392206

字数：324.。。。不多说了，板油帮忙拍拍，谢谢：）
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."

By making a comparison of two group of patients whom are suffer from severe muscle strain, the conclusion that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Though it seems logical, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals a series of dubious assumptions, which render it quite unconvincing.

First of all, the argument relies on what might be a false analogy between the two groups. The arguer simply assumed that the two group are simulate and can make comparation, but he proved no evidence to show that if the two group of patients has the same symptom of muscle strain. Different part of the injury may also leads to varies recuperation time. Meanwhile, different patients may be in different age and different figure. All these factors may lead the recuperation time be diversity.

What's more, their is no guarantee that these two doctors treat these patients the same. In fact, common sense informed me that the doctor who specializes in sports medicine is better than the general physician. Also we don't know that whether the second group have any other treatment except taking the sugar pills. So we cannot safely assume that these two group of patients has be given the same treatment besides antibiotics and sugar pills.

Finally, there is no evidence prove that the antibiotics has any other effects to the patient. Maybe it will lead to some side effects. So we can't take antibiotics as part of the treatment just due to this experiment. Meanwhile, we also have no evidence to prove that the sugar pills have no effects. This possibility can not be eliminated.

In sum, the argument neither present much evidence about those detail above in the comparison group nor take the side effects of antibiotics in consideration. To better evaluate the arguer's conclusion, we need more information regarding the other effects of the antibiotics and sugar pills, particularly, the detail information of the two group.

general727UID: 2494818

argument51 【7\8\9\10】 7.21(第一次作业) by buctcontrol
字数：324.。。。不多说了，板油帮忙拍拍，谢谢：）
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."

By making a comparison of two groups of patients whom are suffer from severe muscle strain, the conclusion that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Though it seems logical, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals a series of dubious assumptions, which render it quite unconvincing.

First of all, the argument relies on what might be a false analogy between the two groups. The arguer simply assumed that the two groups are simulate and can make comparation, but he proved no evidence to show that if the two groups of patients has the same symptom of muscle strain. Different part of the injury may also leads to varies recuperation time. Meanwhile, different patients may be in different age and different figure. All these factors may lead the recuperation time be diversity. (可以举具体例子，比如，年轻比年老容易康复)

What's more, there is no guarantee that these two doctors treat these patients the same. In fact, common sense informed me that the doctor who specializes in sports medicine is better than the general physician (在那一方面). Also we don't know that whether the second group has any other treatment except taking the sugar pills. So we cannot safely assume that these two groups of patients have been given the same treatment besides antibiotics and sugar pills.

Finally, there is no evidence prove that the antibiotics has any other effects to the patient. Maybe it will lead to some side effects . So we can't take antibiotics as part of the treatment just due to this experiment. Meanwhile, we also have(应该是被动吧) no evidence to prove that the sugar pills have no effects. This possibility can not be eliminated.

In sum, the argument neither present much evidence about those detail above in the comparison groups nor take the side effects of antibiotics in consideration. To better evaluate the arguer's conclusion, we need more information regarding the other effects of the antibiotics and sugar pills, particularly, the detail information of the two groups.
小建议：文章思路很好，三个攻击点，
        还缺少一些生动的例子
        注意以下单、复数。
      
Add oil!

(我不知道为什么没显示红字，但你的确应该注意一下单复数问题)