Argument51【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】第二周第二次作业 by luyaoxu

luyaoxuUID: 2588850

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."
医生长期以来怀疑严重肌肉扭伤后的二次感染妨碍了一些患者迅速康复。这一假说现在被一项对两组患者的研究的初步结果所证实。第一组患者全部由专攻运动医学的Dr. Newland治疗肌肉损伤，他们在疗程中经常服用抗生素。他们的康复期平均比通常预期的快40％。第二组患者由综合医师Dr. Alton治疗，他们被给予糖丸，而患者相信他们在服用抗生素。他们的平均康复时间没有明显缩短。因此，任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗。
【提纲】
Musle strain doesn’t result in the secondary infections necessarily.
The argument cited to prove that antibiotics help to heal more quickly has flaws.
The antibiotic has other side effects.

In this argument, the arguer recommends all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of treatment. To justify this claim, the arguer pointed out that the hypothesis that the secondary infections keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain has been proved recently. In the study aiming at two groups of patients, one group being treated by Dr. Newland who specialized in sports medicine took antibiotics regularly throughout treatment and their recuperation time was on average 40 percent quicker than typically expected; the other group being treated by Dr. Alton who is a general physician took sugar pills though they believed antibiotics instead and their recuperation was not significantly reduced. Though the argument sounds reasonable at first glance, a careful examination of this agument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

To start with, the basic premise of the argument that the secondary infection happens doesn’t stand warrantly, since the arguer doesn’t prove any information that muscle strain results in the secondary infections necessarily or easily. If the patient doesn’t catch the secondary infection, the author’s recommendation is obviously meaningless.

In addition, the argument which cited a grouping study to prove that the antibiotics help to heal more quickly has severe flaws. First, assessing the treatment effects requires examing the comprehensive information of two grouping patients, while the author fails to supply the correlated data such as age,gender and other physiological features. It’s probably that the group taking the antibiotics are people who are young or have strong physique and the other group are fragile patients. In such circumstance, it’s hard to make sure that it’s the antibiotics rather than other factors that cause patients to recover more quickly. Secondly, the level of doctors’ experience and capability also works on the recovering speed of patients. Generally speaking, the doctor who specializes in sports medicine is more proficient in muscle problems. So his higher skills or more specified treatment strategy may account for healing more quickly rather than the usage of antibiotics. Thirdly, the group which didn’t take antibiotics took sugar pills instead, while the author shows no evidence that the suger would not affect the recovery of patients.Therefore, it’s too presumptuous to conclude that the antibiotics help to heal more quickly for patients with muscle strain problems.

Another problem the arguer failed to consider is that aside from sterilization and avoiding infection, the antibiotics also has a side effect. Some patients are allergic to antibiotics, so it’s not appropriate and even dangerous to suggest all patients with muscle strain problems to take antibiotics for healthy excuses.

To solidify the argument, the author would have to offer more information about the probability of catching the secondary infection in patients with muscle strain problems. Additionally, a scientific proof should be granted to demonstrate that with the same doctor, same physical conditions, same problems and same treatment methods and so on, the antibiotics is beneficial to recovery.

waidswUID: 2256074

In this argument, the arguer recommends all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of treatment. To justify this claim, the arguer pointed out that the hypothesis that the secondary infections keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain has been proved recently.(delete) In the study aiming at two groups of patients, one group being treated by Dr. Newland who specialized in sports medicine took antibiotics regularly throughout treatment and their recuperation time was on average 40 percent quicker than typically expected; the other group being treated by Dr. Alton who is a general physician took sugar pills though they believed antibiotics instead and their recuperation was not significantly reduced. Though the argument sounds reasonable at first glance, a careful examination of this agument (argument) would reveal how groundless the conclusion is. (Be concise!)

To start with, the basic premise of the argument that the secondary infection happens doesn’t stand warrantly, (validly) since the arguer (author)doesn’t prove any information that muscle strain results in the secondary infections necessarily or easily. If the patient doesn’t catch the secondary infection, the author’s recommendation is obviously meaningless. (If the author’s point is correct, that point implies that muscle strain results in the secondary infections. So you have to argue against the study first. )

In addition, the argument which cited a grouping study to prove that the antibiotics help to heal more quickly has severe flaws. First, assessing the treatment effects requires examing the comprehensive information of two grouping patients, while the author fails to supply the correlated data such as age,gender and other physiological features. It’s probably that the group taking the antibiotics are people who are young or have strong physique and the other group are fragile patients. In such circumstance, it’s hard to make sure that it’s the antibiotics rather than other factors that cause patients to recover more quickly. Secondly, the level of doctors’ experience and capability also works on the recovering speed of patients. Generally speaking, the doctor who specializes in sports medicine is more proficient in muscle problems. So his higher skills or more specified treatment strategy may account for healing more quickly rather than the usage of antibiotics. Thirdly, the group which didn’t take antibiotics took sugar pills instead, while the author shows no evidence that the suger would not affect the recovery of patients. (I don't think sugar have effects on recovery. )Therefore, it’s too presumptuous to conclude that the antibiotics help to heal more quickly for patients with muscle strain problems.

Another problem the arguer failed to consider is that aside from sterilization and avoiding infection, the antibiotics also has a side effect. Some patients are allergic to antibiotics, so it’s not appropriate and even dangerous to suggest all patients with muscle strain problems to take antibiotics for healthy excuses. (You should move your second paragraph here, saying” some muscle strain may not result in the secondary infections, so it is not appropriate to suggest all patients to take antibiotics ”)

To solidify the argument, the author would have to offer more information about the probability of catching the secondary infection in patients with muscle strain problems. Additionally, a scientific proof should be granted to demonstrate that with the same doctor, same physical conditions, same problems and same treatment methods and so on, the antibiotics is beneficial to recovery.


Pretty good, you almost argued against all weak points I could think about. One point you missed to mention is “even antibiotics is effective, it might not mean that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing.” It is better than what I wrote before.