【Flyer杀G作文组】1月18日 ARGUMENT NO.51 by Martinmiao

MartinmiaoUID：2993447

第一次写，望多多包涵...多多指教...

ARGUMENT    NO.51
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. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The conclusion of this argument is taking antibiotics
as part of treatment is good for the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. After a critical thinking we can conclude this argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. Here are my reasons.

Comparison is the most useful way in scientific research which is also used in this argument. However, the comparison in this argument leave alone one of the most important thing that is all the comparison should be under the same situation.

First of all, in this argument it only tells us there are two groups of patients being treated by two different doctors, but doesn’t tell more about the patients. As is known by us, the condition of the patients is one of the most important situations being considered in a research, but the argument forgets this. As a result of this, the reliability of this argument is lower than under the condition of the two groups using the patients in the same situations.

Then, the doctors are another lapse in this argument. Whether the doctors are professional is another key in the treating the patients. A research shows that the feelings of the patients are also very important in treatment. In this argument the two groups have two different doctors, one is Dr. Newland who specializes in sports medicine another is Dr. Alton, a general physician. There is no doubt that Dr. Newland who specializes in sports medicine must have a positive effect on the patients, which makes the patients believe the doctor is professional. But the other group the situation is totally different. So this also reduces the reliability of this argument.

The last but not the least is the argument wants to show the effect of antibiotics in treating muscle strain, so one of the group takes antibiotics another takes sugar pills. But the group which takes sugar pills is believed they are taking antibiotics. In my opinion, carrying out this research in this way isn’t scientific, for the research just want to know the effect of antibiotics in treating muscle strain. So the two groups should be all in the same situation and then one group takes the antibiotics the other doesn’t. But in this argument the group takes sugar pills believes they are taking antibiotics, which brings in the effect of the feeling of the patients into the research. To conclude, this part of the argument has a bad effect on the reliability.

To sum up, this argument shows the benefit effect of antibiotics in treating the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain by the comparison of two group patients, but forget the condition of the comparison. If this argument takes the three details mentioned in the foregoing in consideration, this argument will be more scientific.