Argument51 【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】第2周第2次作业 thanks paooozhixia163

liuguaguaUID: 2569375

"Doctors have long suspected thatsecondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severemuscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of astudy of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treatedfor muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sportsmedicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Theirrecuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected.Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a generalphysician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they weretaking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantlyreduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would bewell advised to take antibiotics as part of their reatment."

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、对比实验。初始情况是否相同，试验中的其它因素是否相同。
    初始情况：调查者的年龄，受伤的程度，基因是否相同。
    其它因素：医生的不同或许是原因。运动专家可能采取了其它运动方法来治疗了。而综合大师可能治疗肌肉拉伤本来就比较弱一点。
2、初级的数据不能验证猜测的正确性。初期数据不成熟，可能后期的数据会论证猜测根本就是一个错误。
3、以小推大，即使数据可以说明扭伤的二次感染妨碍康复，也不能说明所有的肌肉损伤患者都应服用抗生素。

This argument recommends that patients with muscle straindisease should take antibiotics as the auxiliary treatments. In order tosupport his recommendation, the author points out two studies in which twogroups of patients are treated by different comparative methods. Close scrutinyof the argument reveals some logic flaws, which renders it unconvincing. I willdiscuss them in turn.

In the beginning, unless the experiment was conducted ina controlled experiment in which the initial condition and other factors werethe same for first group and second group, the author cannot draw any firmconclusion about the comparative effectives of antibiotics for the twocounterparts. Are the initial conditions the same? Different age, differentinjure degree and different genes lead to a totally different situation.Moreover, It is entirely possible that Dr Newland, a sports medicine expertise,supply the patients with other sports treatment such as jogging or oxygen gameswhich are truly effective to the recovery of muscle strain instead ofantibiotics. Dr Alton, a general physician, is less good at curing the musclestrain compared with Dr Newland. In addition, the recuperation time in thesecond group is not relatively reduced comparing with those of the first, whichcannot reason that the results in the first group are better than that of thesecond one.

The author assumesthat the preliminary result can be taken advantage to attest the hypothesis. Primaryresults mean that the results are not fully developed and may present otherphenomenon in the gradual study. Perhaps the follow-up results will prove thatthis hypothesis is doubtable. Without accounting for this possibility, it isentirely possible these earliest results are ineffective to justify thehypothesis.

Last but not least, even assuming that patients with secondaryinfections of muscle strain should take the antibiotics, the author’sassertion about the effectiveness of antibiotics on patients with all musclestrain disease are unwarranted. Perhaps, people with serious injury of musclestrain must have a surgery operation; or perhaps, people with slight injury canbe recovered through outdoor exercises. Thus, I cannot accept the author’ssweeping generalization about the useful application of antibiotics.  

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. Inorder to strengthen the argument, the author should provide cogent evidence toprove that the study was performed in a controlled environment where all thefactors possibly affecting the recovery of muscle strain remained constant. Theargument should also supply the evidences about the attestation of reliabilityof preliminary results and antibiotics.