Argument51【0906G 文以载道三月四月作文小组】第2周第1作业 thanks conceptal

maomao112UID: 2548513

【标题】
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."
医生长期以来怀疑严重肌肉扭伤后的二次感染妨碍了一些患者迅速康复。这一假说现在被一项对两组患者的研究的初步结果所证实。第一组患者全部由专攻运动医学的Dr. Newland治疗肌肉损伤，他们在疗程中经常服用抗生素。他们的康复期平均比通常预期的快40％。第二组患者由综合医师Dr. Alton治疗，他们被给予糖丸，而患者相信他们在服用抗生素。他们的平均康复时间没有明显缩短。因此，任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗。

【提纲】
1、  两组病人的实验中只说他们肌肉拉伤，并没有说明他们容易二次感染或者已经发生二次感染，因而不能证明其结论。
2、  即使承认这些病人易于或者已经发生二次感染，但是论据依然不够充分，因为没有提供任何有关两组病人的资料。有关他们的年龄、性别以及其他生理特征。有可能服用抗生素的一组病人比较年轻，或是本身生理机能好，而不服用的一组病人可能都是体质弱的人。这样就不能说明是抗生素而不是其他原因使得病人康复快。
3、  另外两位医生的经验和水平也会影响病人康复的速度，一般来说运动医生会比普通医生更了解肌肉的问题，所以由他治疗的病人康复快，就不能排除是因为他的水平高或是治疗有针对性造成，这样也不能说明是抗生素使得病人康复快。
4、  不服抗生素的一组食用了糖片，而论者没有给出资料证明这种糖片不会影响病人的康复。所以对这两组病人的研究并不能说明抗生素能使病人康复快。


【正文】
In this newsletter, the arguer points out that secondary infections may prevent some patients from healing fast after severe muscle strain. To substantiate this assertion, the arguer cites a study of two groups of muscle injuries patients. The first group of patients took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. And patients in the second group were given sugar pills. The result of this study is that the average recuperation time of the first group is shorter than the second group.  At the first glance, the arguer’s conclusion seems to be somewhat plausible. However, after a further consideration, the assertion relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, in this study, the patients in these two groups just have muscle injuries. There is no evidence to prove these patients are likely to suffer secondary infections or have been secondary infections. The arguer cannot tell us the relationship between the muscle injuries and secondary infections. And the two respects might not have any connection. Thus, the arguer’s reasoning linking muscle injuries with secondary infections might not be true after further scrutiny.

Secondly, even though the arguer can bolster the close relationship of muscle injuries with secondary infections, and these patients suffer secondary infections, the evidences are not sufficient, because of the absence of the data of the patients. Perhaps patients in the first group are youths, while the second group patients are seniors. Or perhaps the patients with antibiotics are stronger than the patients with sugar pills. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is taken for granted that the first group patients recover sooner.

In addition, the two doctors’ experience and skills also affect the recovery speed of patients. In general, the doctor specializing in sports medicine who is the doctor of the first group is more excellent and skilled than the general physician who treats the patients in second group in the treatment of muscle injuries. Thus patients of the doctor specializing in sports medicine recover quickly. Without ruling out the other possible explanations, the arguer’s conclusion that taking antibiotics can reduce the recuperation time, when people suffer muscle injuries is unconvincing.

Last but not least, the sugar pills may cause a negative effect in healing muscle injuries. But the arguer cannot provide any evidence to prove that the sugar pills do not increase the recuperation time. So the study of these two groups of patients cannot support the arguer’s view.

In sum, the argument is simple not credible as it stands, at least based on the article. To strengthen the conclusion more efficient, the arguer must show more clear evidence and do an accurate and more reliable study by scientific methods.

corpuscleUID: 2503411

这一句才是结论：Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment
整体感觉你的主体段安排的不好，B2、B3可以合并成一段，攻击研究背景
然后再写B1，说这个结论过于草率
最后再攻击作者的结论，并非所有的肌肉损伤都应该服用抗生素
具体的论证方面，不仅要说出可能，再具体说说这些可能如何削弱主题的。从多角度攻击，感觉你攻击的角度有点窄
加油