【八九点钟】第一次作业 A 51

wowoyuweiweiUID: 2754055

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."

From this argument, we can notice that based on an hypothesis, which is proved be an experiment, the author states that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would well advised to take antibiotics. But, there are some flaws in this article. Here I will argue them in turn.

The most important warranty in logic is that the hypothesis can not support the suggestion mentioned by the writer. As we can see, at first, the hypothesis states that only some patients will be affected by the secondary infections. However, this can not prove the conclusion that all patients with muscle injury can be attended with antibiotics. In fact, different patients have different situations and we should take these differences into consideration.
For example, if a patient, even if he/she got serious muscle injury, is allergic to the antibiotics, the doctor definitely should not care him/her with this kind of medicine. The wrong doings may cause other terrible effects even death which can be avoided if doctors had thought about the special condition.

Secondly, the hypothesis declares that the patients with severe muscle strain will be affected. However, it is suggested people diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics in the end of the passage. This conclusion lacks of enough evidence even though there is a hypothesis. As we know, there are many kinds of muscle strain and some of them can be healed even without any special treatment. For example, if a child got a light muscle strain when playing basketball, he/she just needs to take a good rest for several days. Hence, under this condition, there is no need to take medicine, so does the antibiotics.

The next flaw lies to the relation between the experiment and the supposal. There are many possible factors influence the outcome of the experiment. It is possible that the expertise of the chief doctor may dominate the result. As it is referred that the major of these two doctors are different, Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine and the other one is a general physician. As a possible consequence, Dr. Newland may treat the patients more effective thanks to the professional knowledge. Thus, the result fails to prove the hypothesis.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. In order to bolster the suggestion, the writer ought to present more effective facts about whether antibiotics fit every patient with muscle strain. In addition, it is needed to provide more details to sustain the hypothesis.

谦虚的小公鸡UID: 2961678

你是GRESurvivor小组的人吗？

wowoyuweiweiUID: 2754055

2# 谦虚的小公鸡
不是啊，是八九点钟小组的