argument51 泡面组8/17,有拍必回

real_vcUID: 195631

Argument51
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The author concludes that any patient who suffers the muscle strain should be well take antibiotics as part of their treatment, because the secondary infections may prevent healing quickly. To support his argument, the author show us a study of two groups of patients who suffer the muscle strain. After carefully examining the claim, we can find several critical flaws.

First of all, the author makes an unwarranted assumption that any one who is diagnosed with muscle strain will catch the secondary infection. The author hasn't provide any evidence to suffice it, as a result we cannot be convinced. Since the assumption is unsupported, how can we believe that secondary infection will cause those who suffer the muscle strain healing more slowly.  Perhaps the quality of the healing or the protection of the strained muscle during the treatment may has some influence on the time of the cure.  Thus, the assumption is truly skeptical owing to lack of substantial evidence.

Furthermore, they study of two groups of patients is unauthoritative in following aspects. Firstly, the information about the two groups of patients who involved are unknown to us. How old are they respectively? What jobs they do? What level of each one's injuries is? Are they representative of all the people suffering muscle strain? All these questions are unanswered. Thereby, it is entirely  possible that these patients are selected from the same district or someone may suffer more server muscle injuries. As a result, the study is not sufficient to validate the conclusion. Secondly, there is a false analogy in the study.  These two groups were treated by two doctors respectively. It is reasonable for us to believe that the  levels of these two doctors are not equal. Common sense tell us that the one who specialize in sports medicine are skillful than one who is a general physician in muscle strain. So this may be one of the cause of the different healing time.  Thirdly, we should pay attention to the "average recuperation time", which is a vague concept. Perhaps, some one healed very quickly due to only a little injuries whole some suffered much more severe. And maybe in group one there are more little injured people, yet in contrary in group two. Therefore, the statistical reliability of the healing time is dubious.

In sum, the argument is unpersuadable because the severe doubtful points showed above. If the author can offer us more evidence of the possibility of secondary infection after muscle strain and ensures the same the doctor,same treatment, and the representative patients, it is more helpful for us to trust the claim that antibiotics is effective on muscle strain.

skylovUID: 209137

argument51 泡面组8/17,有拍必回

Argument51
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The author concludes that any patient who suffers the muscle strain should be(删) well take antibiotics as part of their treatment, because the secondary infections may prevent healing quickly. To support his argument, the author show us a study of two groups of patients who suffer the muscle strain. After carefully examining the claim, we can find several critical flaws.

First of all, the author makes an unwarranted assumption that any one who is diagnosed with muscle strain will catch the secondary infection. The author hasn't provide any evidence to suffice it, as a result we cannot be convinced. Since the assumption is unsupported, how can we believe that secondary infection will cause those who suffer the muscle strain healing more slowly.(觉得这是第二段的内容)  Perhaps the quality of the healing or the protection of the strained muscle during the treatment may has some influence on the time of the cure.  Thus, the assumption is truly skeptical owing to lack of substantial evidence.

Furthermore, they study of two groups of patients is unauthoritative in following aspects. Firstly, the information about the two groups of patients who involved are unknown to us. How old are they respectively? What jobs they do? What level of each one's injuries is? Are they representative of all the people suffering muscle strain? All these questions are unanswered. Thereby, it is entirely  possible that these patients are selected from the same district(??来自同一地区好象没太大关系,难道是遗传,饮食习惯?) or someone may suffer more server muscle injuries. As a result, the study is not sufficient to validate the conclusion. Secondly, there is a false analogy in the study.  These two groups were treated by two doctors respectively. It is reasonable for us to believe that the  levels of these two doctors are not equal. Common sense tell(s) us that the one who specialize in sports medicine are skillful than one who is a general physician in muscle strain. So this may be one of the cause of the different healing time.  Thirdly, we should pay attention to the "average recuperation time", which is a vague concept. Perhaps, some one healed very quickly due to only a little injuries whole some suffered much more severe. And maybe in group one there are more little injured people, yet in contrary in group two. Therefore, the statistical reliability of the healing time is dubious.

In sum, the argument is unpersuadable because the severe doubtful points showed above. If the author can offer us more evidence of the possibility of secondary infection after muscle strain and ensures the same the doctor,same treatment, and the representative patients, it is more helpful for us to trust the claim that antibiotics is effective on muscle strain.  
论证的还是很有力的～～呵呵，就是结构分配上好象有点问题
我的提纲
1. 俩个医生两组患者无法比较
2.抗生素不一定有用
3. 结论武断,不一定任何肌肉拉伤者都应服用