【☆09GRE作文冲刺组☆】09/02/24号作业Argument

tanyujing2UID: 2600111

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."
分论点：1，“抗生素可以防止二次感染，从而促进肌肉的恢复”这个结论是站不住脚的，

2. 两个实验是错误类比，医生不同，伤者程度不同，环境不同，气候不同。



The newsletter shows the antibiotics’ good effect on the muscle strain by providing two specific studies of different groups in different places. However, the author obviously make some logic fallacies that I will tip one by one below:

Initially, the analogous studies conducted by different doctors cannot be the evidence for the author to conclude that the antibiotics should prevent the strained muscle from the secondary infections and then the muscle strain would disappear more quickly than before, since lacking the necessary information to show some other possibilities. Perhaps there are other factors that can prevent the muscles from the secondary infections such as clean the wounded place with boiled water, and perhaps the treatment contains other effective therapies.

Secondly, the two studies are false analogy, since there is no other information to show how sever the strained muscle is? If those who involved in the studies have the identical level of severity? Is there anything possible that can make the recuperation more quick than before? From the author claims, the doctor who conducted the first study is not the same as the second. May be the doctor who specialize in sports medicine is more specializing than the second who majoring in general physician, since the antibiotics is one of the medicines. And the circumstances in theses two places are different any more, may be the first study conducted in a more comfortable and drier places that can prevent the muscle strained from infections than the second one, may be the climate in the first place is more suitable for the patients.

Furthermore, granted the fact that the antibiotics is effective for the recuperation of the muscle strain, we cannot regard the sugar pills as the placebo and ignore other reasons that may cause the strain more sever such as the therapies contained in the treatment and the cohesion as the patient followed of the practical treatment.

Lastly, I have to end my argument on the presumption of the reliabilities of the studies and the conclusion that the author hastily made.

swbaiUID: 2600532

The newsletter shows the antibiotics’ good effect on the muscle strain by providing two specific studies of different groups in different places. However, the author obviously make some logic fallacies that I will tip one by one below:

Initially, the analogous studies conducted by different doctors cannot be the evidence for the author to conclude that the antibiotics should prevent the strained muscle from the secondary infections and then the muscle strain would disappear more quickly than before, since lacking the necessary information to show some other possibilities. Perhaps there are other factors that can prevent the muscles from the secondary infections such as clean the wounded place with boiled water, and perhaps the treatment contains other effective therapies.

Secondly, the two studies are false analogy, since there is no other information to show how sever the strained muscle is? If those who involved in the studies have the identical level of severity? Is there anything possible that can make the recuperation more quick than before? From the author claims, the doctor who conducted the first study is not the same as the second. May be the doctor who specialize in sports medicine is more specializing than the second who majoring in general physician, since the antibiotics is one of the medicines. And the circumstances in theses two places are different any more, may be the first study conducted in a more comfortable and drier places that can prevent the muscle strained from infections than the second one, and may be the climate in the first place is more suitable for the patients.

Furthermore, granted the fact that the antibiotics is effective for the recuperation of the muscle strain, we cannot regard the sugar pills as the placebo and ignore other reasons that may cause the strain more sever such as the therapies contained in the treatment and the cohesion as the patient followed of the practical treatment.

Lastly, I have to end my argument on the presumption of the reliabilities of the studies and the conclusion that the author hastily made.

楼主需要注意：文章字数不够，建议你对着键盘使劲打字，速度越快越准越好。最后的总结太简单，应该把你之前的论点做个总结。开头也显得简单。