Argument51 限时完成 v6 8.23

kobestrongUID: 2117374

Argument51 限时完成
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 speaker attempts to suggest that all patients suffering the muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of the treatment. In order to substantiate his contention, the speaker supports a study of two groups of patients. However, in my view, the speaker’s assumption suffers from several logical false.

Firstly, the speaker ignores an important prerequisite that whether both the patients of the two groups suffer from the secondary infections after their muscle injuries. The speaker does not support any information about it, and it is entirely possible that the patients do not have secondary infection, and then the usage of the antibiotics is not the reason for the quicker treatment.

Secondly, even if the speaker could substantiates that the patients have secondary infections, the study still lend no support for the speaker's contention. The speaker fails to consider the different situations between the two groups of patients the different abilities between the two doctors. It is entirely possible that the patients' injuries in the second group are much more serious than the ones in the first group, and if so, the result based on such comparison is not convincing. Similarly, the two doctors are dedicating in two different fields-- one is specializing in sports medicine and the other one is a general physician, and it is entirely possible that the first doctor is more proficient in treating the muscle injuries than the second one, thus the patients in the first group cover quicker. Without considering all these possibilities, the speaker could not come to the conclusion that antibiotics are useful in the treatment.

Finally, even if the speaker could substantiates all the foregoing assumptions, he still could not convince me by the recommendation that all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take the antibiotics as part of the treatment. Different patients suffer from different symptoms and have different constitutions. It is too hasty to suggest all the patients take this treatment without consider any side effects. In short, the speaker could not convince that all the patients suffering from muscle strain should use antibiotics even if it is effective to some patients.

In conclusion, to better evaluate the argument, we need more convincing evident and information.

mrealUID: 201732

我来~

mrealUID: 201732

The speaker attempts to suggest that all patients suffering the muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of the treatment. In order to substantiate his contention, the speaker supports a study of two groups of patients. However, in my view, the speaker’s assumption suffers from several logical false.

Firstly, the speaker ignores an important prerequisite that whether both the patients of the two groups suffer from the secondary infections after their muscle injuries. The speaker does not support any information about it, and it is entirely possible that the patients do not have secondary infection, and then the usage of the antibiotics is not the reason for the quicker treatment.

Secondly, even if the speaker could substantiates that the patients have secondary infections, the study still lends no support for the speaker's contention. The speaker fails to consider the different situations between the two groups of patients and the different abilities between the two doctors. It is entirely possible that the patients' injuries in the second group are much more serious than the ones in the first group, and if so, the result based on such comparison is not convincing. Similarly, the two doctors are dedicating in two different fields-- one is specializing in sports medicine and the other one is a general physician, and it is entirely possible that the first doctor is more proficient in treating the muscle injuries than the second one, thus the patients in the first group cover quicker. Without considering all these possibilities, the speaker could not come to the conclusion that antibiotics are useful in the treatment.

Finally, even if the speaker could substantiates all the foregoing assumptions, he still could not convince me by the recommendation that all the patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take the antibiotics as part of the treatment. Different patients suffer from different symptoms and have different constitutions. It is too hasty to suggest all the patients take this treatment without consider any side effects. In short, the speaker could not convince that all the patients suffering from muscle strain should use antibiotics even if it is effective to some patients.

In conclusion, to better evaluate the argument, we need more convincing evident and information.
总体看来很不错啊~语言挺流畅的，而且这篇错误找的也没有什么问题，就是感觉结尾短了点，是不是限时弄得啊，呵呵~
快考了吧？加油啊，没问题！！

mrealUID: 201732

似乎还有一个小地方可以质疑：就是第二个医生给的糖丸，会不会影响治疗效果？