Argument51 敬请大家赐教，谢谢. 请留下链接，方便回拍

Archer1123UID: 206148

51.
"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."
1. study的科学性，患者人数，的具体情况，第一组是否采取了其它恢复方式
2. 平均不能代表全体都是如此
3. 未考虑其它因素，抗生素的副作用，价格
4. 肌肉拉伤的患者不一定都会二次感染

In the argument, the author claims that all patients with muscle train should take antibiotics as part of their treatment in that antibiotics is helpful to heal the secondary infection. At the first glance, the argument seems plausible and reasonable, because the author provides a study to substantiate the conclusion. However, on the second thought, as a matter of fact this statement is not persuasive as it stands and cannot be accepted under the careful examination and scrutiny.

To begin with, the author's conclusion bases on a questionable and vague study. The quantity of patients in very group is enough to make a scientific conclusion. How about the detail physical conditions of patient in groups? If patients in the first group have better recuperation than those in second group, any comparison between two groups is invalid absolutely. What’s more, the doctors charging for two groups major in different fields. Perhaps Dr. Newland, who specializes in sports medicine, would adopt some assistant methods to reduce the recovery time, while Dr. Alton, a general physician, did nothing but distribute the pills. Lacking the detail information of two groups, it is hard or even impossible for us to concept the conclusion.

Furthermore, the author only renders the average recuperation time of two groups in the argument. Because the average data cannot represent the whole condition, we have good reasons to doubt that the recuperation times of some patients in first group was much longer than typically expected. Perhaps most of recuperation times in second group was shorter than typically expected, just only a few patients’ recuperation time was much longer, which cause the average time was not reduced significantly. If the author cannot rule out these possibilities, the conclusion will be weakened greatly.   
  
In addition, the author fails to take into other negative effects or factors of the antibiotics. Whether the antibiotics would bring about or contribute to insomnia, inappetence, allergy or other uncomfortable feeling? If so, the patients should not advised to take the antibiotics even though we concede that it would useful to reduce the recuperation time. Moreover, the author does not provide the price of the antibiotics. If it’s price is much higher than similar medicine, some patients are willing to choose the similar medicine, not the antibiotics.

Last but not the least, the author unconvinced us that all patients whose muscle is strained severely fails is doomed to suffer the secondary infection. There is no evidence provided by the author to demonstrate the inevitability between muscle strain server and the secondary infection. The possibility cannot be excluded that many patients with muscle strain recover soon without the secondary infection. Of course, the antibiotics aiming at the secondary infection is unnecessary for them.

To sum up, based on what has been discussed and analyzed above, it is obvious that the argument is invalid and misleading, and the conclusion reached in the argument is too presumptuous to be accepted. In order to make the conclusion more convincing, the author should gather more specific condition of patients and more scientific comparative data between two groups, at the same time rules out other negative factors and testify the relationship between muscle strain and the secondary infection.

gtrandUID: 2156108

EXCELLENT!!
忍不住要先夸了再说。


In the argument, the author claims that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment in that antibiotics is helpful to heal the secondary infection. At the first glance, the argument seems plausible and reasonable, because the author provides a study to substantiate the conclusion. However, on the second thought, as a matter of fact this statement is not persuasive as it stands and cannot be accepted under the careful examination and scrutiny. on the second thought与最后的careful examination and scrutiny重复。however尽可能放在句中。A careful examination and scrutiny, however, would find that this statement is not  as persuasive as it seems.

To begin with, the author's conclusion bases on a questionable and vague study. The quantity of patients in very group is enough to make a scientific conclusion. is not enough? 人员不能用quantity来修饰，只能用number.　好象从原文中无法肯定得出结论参加试验的人数量不够。No enough information is given regarding the number and the conditions of the patients in each group.How about the detail physical conditions of patient in groups? If patients in the first group have better recuperation physical constitutionsthan those in second group, any comparison between two groups is invalid absolutely.一般不用absolutely。Argument之所以存在漏洞，就是因为太绝对化。我们在攻击的时候也不能犯同样的错误。否则人家会问：你怎么就能肯定呢？ What’s more, the doctors charging for　who treat thetwo groups major in different fields. Perhaps Dr. Newland, who specializes in sports medicine, would adopt some assistant methods to reduce the recovery time, while Dr. Alton, a general physician, did nothing but distributed the pills. Lacking the detail information of two groups, it is hard or even impossible for us to concept acceptthe conclusion.

Furthermore, the author only renders the average recuperation time of two groups in the argument. Because the average data cannot represent the whole condition, we have good reasons to doubt that the recuperation times timeof some patients in first group was much longer than typically expected. Perhaps most of recuperation timestime in second group was shorter than typically expected, withjust only a few patients’ recuperation time was beingmuch longer, which causes the average time was not reduced significantly to be longer than the average of  the first group. . If the author cannot rule out these possibilities, the conclusion will be weakened greatly.   
  
In addition, the author fails to take into other negative effects or factors of the antibiotics. Whether the antibiotics would (Would antibiotics) bring about or contribute to insomnia, inappetence, allergy or other uncomfortable feeling?whether不是疑问词。 If so, the patients should not advised to take the antibiotics even though we concede that it wouldbe useful to reduce the recuperation time. Moreover, the author does not provide the price of the antibiotics. If it’s itsprice is much higher than similar medicine, some patients are may bewilling to choose the similar medicine, not the antibiotics.

Last but not the least, the author unconvinced us assumes   that all patients whose muscle is strained severely is doomed to doomed太严重了。Would definitelysuffer the secondary infection. There is no evidence provided by the author to demonstrate the inevitability between muscle strain server and the secondary infection. The possibility cannot be excluded that many patients with muscle strain recover soon without the secondary infection. Of course,In those cases, the antibiotics aiming at the secondary infection is unnecessary for them.

To sum up, based on what has been discussed and analyzed above, it is obvious that the argument is invalid and misleading, and the conclusion reached in the argument is too presumptuous to be accepted. In order to make the conclusion more convincing, the author should gather more specific information about the conditions condition of thepatients and more scientific comparative data between two groups;, at the same time he or she should rule outrules out other negative factors of antibioticsand testify the relationship between muscle strain and the secondary infection.
prove that secondary infections always occur if one's muscle is strained.

Archer1123UID: 206148

谢谢gtrand帮我修改，
我可能太想指出argu的严重错误，所以用词过于绝对了，犯了大忌，谢谢gtrand提醒
恩，受益匪浅！