【Flyer杀G作文组】1月18日Argument51 by wdvrdx111

wdvrdx111UID：2870800

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 author validates the hypothesis that secondary infections can impede recovery from muscle strain, meanwhile recommends that all patients should take antibiotics as part of their treatment once they are diagnosed with muscle strain. To support the recommendation well, he offers the preliminary results of a study, along with the seemingly detail information about the process and the outcomes. Such evidence and facts are plausible enough to present the result convincing at first glance, but it is undermined by some fallacies and unwarranted assumptions. Four reasons are stated as follows.

To begin with, despite the information afforded in the argument, apparently the author overlooks the integral part of a comprehensive study-the backgrounds of these patients. At the commencement of the study focusing on two controls, the first thing which should be guaranteed is that these participants share the similarity about the level of physical condition and the state of the illness. If the first control is consisted of the senior, while the other is made up of teenage, the critical prerequisite would be vaporous, let alone the situation that not all of them have the secondary infections, and then the study would lead to nothing meaningful at all. In short, for the blunder at the very beginning of the study, I cannot be convinced that the recommendation would be a pragmatic one, so does the hypothesis.

Secondly, though the author assumes that all the specifics and details he provides could underpin the recommendation well, there are still some fallacies should be highlighted: (i) Among these two controls, the doctors who take the charge of their treatments are different. Now that Dr. Newland is the expert of sports medicine, how would the author ensure that his skills outshine that of Dr. Alton, the general physician as the argument claims?(ii) The author literally ignores, or underplays the effects of sugar pills. Such item would be an distraction to the accuracy and rigidity of the results, for the sugar pills may contain some special elements to ameliorate the symptom, or exacerbate on the contrary.(iii)The cause-and-effect relationships reflected from the results of the separated groups are not so warranted to drive me persuaded that it is the antibiotics, along with the assistance of the certain doctor, that reduce the recuperation time without ruling out other possible factors, such as the mental effects.

Thirdly, depending on the result of the study, the author furthers the viewpoint that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics. Even I concede that the study successfully points out the effects brought about by the antibiotics do works on the patients who have the secondary infections, how could the author enlarge the scope to the range of all patients with muscle strain? Unless there are other studies or clinical experiments that afford the evidences to testify the assumption, hardly can I approve of this recommendation. Moreover, according to the side effect of antibiotics proven by scientists nowadays, the author should be responsible to illustrate the latent peril to give a comprehensive advice.

Finally, even if all the foregoing assumptions and evidences could bolster the recommendation well, the study would be the contingent factor to prove the hypothesis. In order to present a well-testified argument, the author should list more information about the clinical experiments and the relevant studies in parallel, such as researches charged by others, or authoritative data and figures of those in the past.

To sum up, the evidences and facts mentioned in the argument cannot substantiate the viewpoint, consequently the result is unwarranted. To make a better conclusion, the author should provide more details about the backgrounds of patients, the sugar pills, the expertise of doctor and the mental and physical condition of these participants. Additionally, I need more information about the analogous studies to better assess the recommendation.