argument51－义无反顾小组第十九次作业

kittywen_16UID: 2135347

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

(1)        对试验有效性的质疑：样本是否有代表性；医生是否采用了其他方法辅助治疗；糖丸有没有在试验中发生作用；
(2)        即使设想成立，能否推广到全部肌肉拉伤病人身上。

"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."
WORDS: 260          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2006-6-4

In the argument, the author advised that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. He cited a experiment to support his assertion. Plausible as the argument seems, a careful examination would reveal how groundless it is .

Firstly, his conclusion is rested on the assumption that secondary infections would keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. However, the only experiment does not justifiably prove this assumption is necessary true.  On the one hand, we are not informed the detailed information about the samples. What is the scale of the two groups?  How the samples are selected? How well it can represent of the whole patients, especially of the ones who are severe muscle strain patients? If one group is selected from relative younger patients than the other, it is highly possible for their better constitutions that contribute a short recover time. If the patients are not severely suffered from this illness, the result of the research cant lend strong support to the hypothesis. As a result, absent additional information about the samples, the experiment itself is no sufficient to support to the conclusion .On the other hand, the author indicated the different background of the two doctors who conduct the experiment. We have good reason to doubt whether the doctors took other measures beside the pills according to there different experiences. As we know from the argument, Dr,N is specialized in sports medicine, so he likely offers some advice to his patients, such as supplement nourishment  which helps their recuperation. Dr. A would like to take some physical assistant measures, such as doing exercises. Last but not the least, the experiment does not prove how the sugar pills work in the recuperation. Common sense tell us , substances will take place chemical changes  in some cases. Though it is true that the sugar does not affect the recuperation, it is not necessary the case. Unless the arguer can provide us some compelling evidence that there is no influence imposed by the sugar in the experiment, can he confidently conclude the antibioses pills leads to accelerate recuperation.

Secondly, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generation. Even if the experiment can prove the hypothesis, it may only has effect in some patients who suffered from several muscle strain. Consequently, it is ridiculous for him to apply this study to the whole patients and to suggest all who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be take antibiocs as part of their treatment. In addition, the side-effect of the antibiocs is still unknown in the argument. As a result ,without sweeping out these suspicions, he can not convince us accept his proposal.

In sum, if the arguer aims to short the recuperation time for muscle strain patients, more detailed research is needed before he draw a confident conclusion.

看argument 应该这样写（一），又看到andiee的意见，觉得还是试验的疑点多，就下了比较大的功夫批驳这个试验。

[ 本帖最后由 kittywen_16 于 2006-6-4 18:45 编辑 ]

glxingUID: 2156425

大家都要按时写作业，不然我们建立小组干什么？
我现自我检讨，最近毕业事情较多，有些散漫，今后一定向kitty学习，坚持不懈~！！！
走过的路过的都表个态，顶一下！

kittywen_16UID: 2135347

这周的作业布置了吗？被蜗牛兄一夸，偶都不好意思了，可能大家都太忙了，求质量不求数量可以理解啊

yuviUID: 2169411

星期三布置新的作业,KITTY这两天可以先自己写写,或者你写好了就直接发出来,当我们这周的作业.我到时候放在公告里大家一起写 :)

glxingUID: 2156425

提纲：
1，研究的对象不具有代表性
2，两位大夫不具有可比性
3，不能将结论是用于所有病人
In this argument, the arguer claims that secondary infections keep patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain and all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics. To support this claim the author cites a medical study as evidence. Close scrutiny of this evidence reveals that the arguer has made several mistakes.

First of all, the author does not warrant that the two groups of patients in the example can be representative of all patients with muscle strain. Are they chosen randomly? Can the number of patients in the study is large enough to be representative? Without such information we can not believe that the study has statistical value. Moreover ,the arguer does not assure that the two groups of patients are similar in physical condition .It is possibly that the first group of patients are much younger and  stronger than the second group, so they are easier to gain  recuperation in the treatment process. It is also questionable whether the locations of injury and severity were the same.

Secondly, the less recuperation time in the first group may due to the better treatment of the doctor, rather than the influence of antibiotics as expected. The comparison of the two doctors is incomplete .The doctor who specializes in sports medicine probably performs a better treatment on muscle injury than a general physician. Maybe the former one has his or her own useful curing methods besides the antibiotics, for example ,he or she would add some special muscle training to the treatment and the other physician does not have such experience on the treatment .The arguer fails to exclude such possibility ,so the result of such study is not convincing.

Last but not the least, doctors just suspected that some patients rather than all of patients with muscle strain may get secondary infections, so even though the antibiotics have effect on the recuperation, the arguer should not advise blindly all patients with muscle stain to take antibiotics.  As we all know, there are some other reasons which cause muscle paints such as strong outside force and the fracture, which have nothing to do with secondary infections, so antibiotics is not needed. Also, if some patients who are allergic to an antibiotic also took the same medicine, it would cause other problems which may be worse than muscle paints. The arguer does not take these possibilities into account so that making such an assertion is somewhat hasty.

In sum ,the arguer fails to make a logically acceptable argument. To make the argument convincing, the arguer should develop better study and get more information about patients to ensure its validity. Moreover, it is better to consider the personal conditions before making the conclusion.

glxingUID: 2156425

看argument 应该这样写（一），又看到andiee的意见，觉得还是试验的疑点多，就下了比较大的功夫批驳这个试验。

kitty,我觉得你那一段写的太长了，应该拆成两段

yuviUID: 2169411

我也觉得kitty的文章第二段太长了,应该分段,不然密密麻麻都是字~~

下个星期1之前我们前几次的作业都要完成,还有互改和小结的工作~~
呵呵,看到的就赶紧加油,不然时间到了就丢进小组批评榜了哈~~:)


我先去写作业了~~^_^

kittywen_16UID: 2135347

好久没来了

[ 本帖最后由 kittywen_16 于 2006-6-9 23:20 编辑 ]