Argument51 【challenge yourself】第五次作业by linyunf

linyunfUID: 2405027

1有多少人会因为肌肉拉伤而产生二次感染？
2这个实验是否证明抗生素对二次感染有作用？
3是否所有人都需要服用抗生素？
In the argument, the arguer advises that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of the treatment because these patients are likely to suffer from secondary infection which keeps them from healing quickly. To support the advice, the author cites contrary experiment where two groups of patients were treated with antibiotics and sugar pills to prove the effectiveness of antibiotics. After careful scrutiny, I find the argument rests on two unwarranted assumptions and that the experiments lend no credible support to the claim.

The first unwarranted assumption is that all patients with muscle strain will catch secondary infections. However, the argument fails to provide the information which is crucial to the arguer’s suggestion. If only a small percentage of such patients get secondary infection, the advice that all patients have to take antibiotics is not necessary.

Another question with the argument is that the experiments cannot sustain the conclusion that patients treated with antibiotics are surly healing better than those who are not. In the experiments, the other features of the patients are not offered. Perhaps the first group of patients are more healthy than the second one. Or perhaps patients from first group suffered from less than the others concerning about muscle strain. The doctors’ abilities and their treatments will also be different if the doctors’ majors are considered(The first doctor is specialized in sports medicine, which means he has more experiences than the second one who is a general physician.). All these factors will account for the different healing time of the patients. Without ruling out these influences, the argument is unsustainable.

What’s more, the advice is questionable, too. Even though all patients will catch secondary infection and the experiment’s conclusion is supported, whether antibiotics fit all patients is questionable. Maybe antibiotics will cause side effect to the patients. Common sense tells me that some people just cannot take such antibiotics. So the advice needs to be considered furthermore.

To sum up, the argument is flawed in these there flaws. To bolster the argument the article’s author need to provide the percentage of patients with muscle strain who also suffers from secondary infection. To better assess the argument I would know whether the two groups of patients are treated in the same way except the difference of the taking of antibiotics. I would also need to know whether antibiotics will lead other problems to the patients.

tongdawpUID: 2500696

In the argument, the arguer advises that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of the treatment because these patients are likely to suffer from secondary infection which keeps them from healing quickly. To support the advice, the author cites contrary experiment where two groups of patients were treated with antibiotics and sugar pills to prove the effectiveness of antibiotics. After careful scrutiny, I find the argument rests on two unwarranted assumptions and that the experiments lend no credible support to the claim.

The first unwarranted assumption is that all patients with muscle strain will catch secondary infections. However, the argument fails to provide the information which is crucial to the arguer’s suggestion. If only a small percentage of such patients get secondary infection, the advice that all patients have to take antibiotics is not necessary.（这段的论证很有说服力，3句话结构层次很清晰。建议把每句话在写长一点。）

Another question with the argument is that the experiments cannot sustain the conclusion that patients treated with antibiotics are surly healing better than those who are not. In the experiments, the other features of the patients are not offered. Perhaps the first group of patients are more healthy than the second one. Or perhaps patients from first group suffered from less than the others concerning about muscle strain. The doctors’ abilities and their treatments will also be different if the doctors’ majors are considered(The first doctor is specialized in sports medicine, which means he has more experiences than the second one who is a general physician.). All these factors will account for the different healing time of the patients. Without ruling out these influences, the argument is unsustainable.（这段要驳的很多，分两段好一点，在一段里有点乱，没有层次。）

What’s more, the advice is questionable, too. Even though all patients will catch secondary infection and the experiment’s conclusion is supported, whether antibiotics fit all patients is questionable. Maybe antibiotics will cause side effect to the patients. Common sense tells me that some people just cannot take such antibiotics.（这句多余，和上句重复，不如再举一个可能。） So the advice needs to be considered furthermore.

To sum up, the argument is flawed in these there flaws. To bolster the argument the article’s author need to provide the percentage of patients with muscle strain who also suffers from secondary infection. To better assess the argument I would know whether the two groups of patients are treated in the same way except the difference of the taking of antibiotics. I would also need to know whether antibiotics will lead other problems to the patients.