argument51 【7\8\9\10】 第一次作业

lisheng19881108UID: 2358622

ag51
The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well reasoned. In this argument, the author makes a conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. At first glance, the author's reasoning seems to be appealing, while clearly exam the author's reasoning, we may find that it is unconvincing. The argument contains several facets that are questionable.

Firstly, the premise about the secondary infections may not happen. The author makes the conclusion because he thinks that the secondary infections must occur but the author does not provide any information to prove the secondary infections will be occurred in patients of muscle strain or the possibility about the secondary infections is large.

Secondly, if the secondary must happen, the author also is failing to consider other possible alternatives to the condition of healing quickly after severe muscle strain. The author provides that this hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study about two groups of patients but the author does not give any information about these two groups such as their gender, their ages, and so on. In addition, the author haves failed to consider the nutrition and physiological function of the two different groups. Perhaps the group which takes antibiotics is young or their personal physiological functions are well and the people's health of the other group may not as good as the first one. So this can not prove that antibiotics let people cover quickly.

Thirdly, No one can defy that the experience about the doctors can effect the conclusion. As usual, the doctor who specializes in sports medicine knows more about muscle questions than general physician, so the patients that are treated by him can cover quickly.  Furthermore, patients who believed they were taking antibiotics may affect by the given sugar pills. In this way, we know the research about the two groups can not prove the function of antibiotics. Besides this, the conclusion is arbitrary about all patients who are diagnosed with muscle train would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. For example, the antibiotics may bring some other problems such as side effect, and so on. The author does not take this possibility seriously.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks of credibility. Regardless of who the author is, he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore many aspects of his or her conclusion. To strengthen the conclusion, the author should give more evidences about the above-mentioned possibilities.