【big fish】习作3.2 argument51---by swolf54

swolf54UID: 2421931

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."

       In this argument, the arguer reaches the conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle stain would be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. In supporting his assertion, he points out that, the hypothesis concerning secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, has just be testified by a study. In that study, patients are divided into two groups and receive different medicines in the experiment. The result shows group received antibiotics recover faster than the one received sugar pills. However, this argument is not convincible due to several false.
          In the first place, the study wasn’t conducted strictly following the comparison experiment roles. It should be noticed that, the first group's doctor is specialized in sports medicine, while the second group's doctor is a general physician. The arguer doesn't exclude the possibility that, besides medicines, other treatment of the two groups also distinct from each other. It is entirely possible that, in treating severe muscle strain, Dr. Newland is more experiential than Dr. Alton. In case that the arguer fallaciously assumes the two groups' treatments are all the same, his conclusion is distrustful.
         In the second place, even except medicine, all the treatments between the groups are all the same, the conclusion is still unconvincing for the reason that, the arguer hasn't give any information of the two groups of patients. We can't rule out the possibility that injury of the patients from treatment group is lighter than one of control group. Besides, perhaps the patients in treatment groups are younger and stronger than those in control group. Thus, without sufficient information of the patients in the two groups, reaching a conclusion that the medicine do has effect is inaccurately.
        At last, even patients' injury levels are identical between the two groups, and the medicine is truly effective in treating severe muscle strain, it is still insufficient in reaching the conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics. Merely from this study, we can only get that the antibiotic works in treatment to severe muscle strain patients. It is also possible that the antibiotics won't work in treatment of other kinds of patients. Thus, the arguer makes a hasty generalization again, because the conclusion and the study refer to different scopes of patients.
All in all, due to the several mistakes made by the arguer, we are skeptical toward his argument. In order to support his attitude, the arguer needs to provide more details about the study, convincing us that the comparison study result is reliable. Beside, in reaching conclusion, the arguer also need to demonstrate that antibiotics are effective to all kinds of patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain.

topranUID: 2310216

1# swolf54

In this argument, the arguer reaches the conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle stain would be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. In supporting(有in doing some thing 这种说法么？我去查查书哈，读的好像不顺) his assertion, he points out that, the hypothesis concerning secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain, has just be testified by a study. In that study, patients are divided into two groups and receive different medicines in the experiment. The result shows group received antibiotics recover faster than the one received sugar pills. However, this argument is not convincible due to several false.
          In the first place, the study wasn’t conducted strictly following the comparison experiment roles. It should be noticed that, the first group's doctor is specialized in sports medicine, while the second group's doctor is a general physician. The arguer doesn't exclude the possibility that, besides medicines, other treatment of the two groups also distinct from each other. It is entirely possible that, in treating severe muscle strain, Dr. Newland is more experiential than Dr. Alton. In case that the arguer fallaciously assumes the two groups' treatments are all the same, his conclusion is distrustful.
         In the second place, even except medicine, all the treatments between the groups are all the same, the conclusion is still unconvincing for the reason that, the arguer hasn't give any information of the two groups of patients. We can't rule out the possibility that injury of the patients from treatment group is lighter than one of control group. Besides, perhaps the patients in treatment groups are younger and stronger than those in control group.(ah, age difference , good point ) Thus, without sufficient information of the patients in the two groups, reaching a conclusion that the medicine do has effect is inaccurately(inaccurate)
        At last, even patients' injury levels are identical between the two groups, and the medicine is truly effective in treating severe muscle strain, it is still insufficient in reaching the conclusion that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics. Merely from this study, we can only get that the antibiotic works in treatment to severe muscle strain patients. It is also possible that the antibiotics won't work in treatment of other kinds of patients. Thus, the arguer makes a hasty generalization again, because the conclusion and the study refer to different scopes of patients.
All in all, due to the several mistakes made by the arguer, we are skeptical toward his argument. In order to support his attitude, the arguer needs to provide more details about the study, convincing us that the comparison study result is reliable. Beside, in reaching conclusion, the arguer also need to demonstrate that antibiotics are effective to all kinds of patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain.

It seems that you miss some point to argue , but so far so good. The structure is clear If you do this argument in limited time , I think you can get a dream scores in the test.

missingusaUID: 2625832

请lz注意正确的发帖格式, 相关内容可以参考这个帖子:
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1042201

修改完后, 请通过站内短消息pm我一下, 谢谢^^