Argument51 第二次感染 求狂拍~有拍必回

rodgoodUID: 2619326

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."


1.以下两方面说明两个实验没有可比性，不能够证明医生一直怀疑的理论是正确的。

A.两个实验中的病人可能存在差异，没有可比性。不能支持

B.两个实验中的医生不同，以及服药的方式（regularly）不同。同样没有可比性
2.即使医生的这个理论是正确的，也不能得出题目中的结论。

In this argument, the author offered a suggestion to all patients who suffered muscle strain to take antibiotics while receiving other treatment according to a supposition, which is supported by a experiment presented, from doctors that these patients may be kept from healing quickly by secondary infections. However, the way of taking experiment suffers several flaws that make the results unconvincing, so they cannot be used as a reason. Meanwhile, the conclusion cannot be obtained absolutely from the supposition. I will discuss them below.

In a scientific research, if scientists want to get the influence from one variable to results, a premise is the insurance of other factors' constancy. In this experiment, besides antibiotics taken, there are other variables mentioned, such as patients' body condition, doctors and treatment with a result of the premise failed to achieve, unfortunately. So, the results of the experiment can not make doctors' supposition correct.

On one hand, the argument did not make sure that the patients in two groups are in a same healthy condition which involves ability to recover themselves and injury degree. Common knowledge tells us that recovering ability, which is a factor to influence recovering time, is different among people. Admittedly, no experiment can recruit patients with accurately same abilities, but at least patients with same age, sex and figure are needed. Moreover, even if having a same ability to recover, ones with light injuries can recover faster than those with severe injuries. In the argument, these healthy conditions of the patients are not mentioned, from which we may speculate that the patients in the first group had less recuperation time because of a better recovering ability or less severe injuries than those in the second group, not the function of antibiotics. Therefore, from this point of view, the results of the experiment are not reliable.

On the other hand, in the experiment, doctors treated the two groups are different, one specializes in sports medicine and other is a general physician, who we suppose was trying his best. Obviously, a doctor majored in sports medicine is more professional than a general one and is able to give a better treatment to patients, making them recover faster. Furthermore, we mention that Dr. Newland, doctor of the first group, provided patients with antibiotics regularly, but Dr. Alton did not give sugar pills on time. An extremely conclusion could be made from it that sugar pills have the same function with antibiotics, which did not work due to not taken regularly. So, the difference between doctors and treatments also make the experiment unsound.

Even though the supposition of doctors is correct, the conclusion in the argument can not be obtained that all patients should take antibiotics, which is groundless. In the supposition, doctors only believe that a secondary infection may make patients recover for a longer time after muscle strain. Firstly, as we can not make sure that taking antibiotics is a effective way to prevent a secondary infection that doctors hope, how can a conclusion be made like that? Secondly, now that we know there are many degrees of injuries, severe or light, one question may emerges, should those with light degree take antibiotics to prevent a infection that will not occur? We are not sure about that, either.

In sum, from discussion above, we are able to discover several mistakes in the reasoning process. An imprecise researching way makes the experiment can not support the doctors' supposition; and the conclusion can not be got from the supposition. Only when the way of experiment was improved and more information about doctors' supposition was provided may a conclusion in the argument be made.

rodgoodUID: 2619326

2# hyq533

谢谢你的评论。我的时态用得的确有点混乱，以后需要注意。用词的重复也是个问题。

对于你的第三条建议，我有点疑问想请教。的确，我的第三段和第四段（on one hand和on the other hand）都是源自第二段。我也想过合并在一起，但是这段就很长了，不晓得是合并好呢还是分开好呢？

对于第四条建议，我认为不存在情绪问题，因为第二组病人虽然吃的是糖片，但是却被告知是抗生素。他们以为也是抗生素，所以应该就不会有情绪差异了吧。

再次感谢。

justbegunUID: 2746795

我也觉得合并比较好
确实 这两段 是一个类型的 错误
而且 LZ的 这两段 给我的感觉是  洋洋洒洒写了很多  但是 其中 的内容只是挖空心思找例外 （可以稍微缩短点里面没有必要的内容 把两段合成 一段）
这样文章变少了？
那就再加点其他的逻辑错误吧
对于调查的总时间是否足够啊，还有有没有更好的方法来治疗呢？这些也许可以另外立一段

语法时态是要注意恩~

rodgoodUID: 2619326

4# justbegun

好的，的确是多了点，呵呵。调查的时间的确可以考虑一下。
谢谢~~