第一次写argu大家帮忙改下！谢谢
51.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."
In this argument, the arguer recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients, one group which took antibiotics and treated by professional doctor was quicker than typically expected on recuperation time. Without the antibiotics and the expert, the other group’s recuperation time was the same as usual. The arguer’s argument is flawed in several critical respects.
First of all, the statistical reliability of the study is questionable. It is a preliminary results of the study not the thorough one. As we all know, the truth must be practiced many times as well as this study. It is entirely possible that some objective factors during the experiment influencing the result. The number of participants might constitute an insufficiently small sample to draw any reliable conclusions about the whole patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain. Also the arguer does not mention the sex, the age and the character of every person in two groups. For that matter, perhaps the first group’s patients are the young men who like sports that tend to recover fast than others. On the contrary, the second group is full of old ladies who never do exercise. Without ruling out this possible scenario, the arguer cannot convince me that the preliminary result of the study is credible.
Secondly, even if the result of the study is accurate and believable, the different of the treatment between two groups make the result questionable. The first group’s patients are cured by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine. Perhaps not the antibiotics but the particular treatment what make their recuperation time is, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. It is possible that the doctor give them a massage everyday and the special sport which can help them recovery. On the other hand, the second group’s doctor: Dr. Alton, a general physician doctor. It might be that he is not good at curing muscle strain especially. In short, lacking assurances that the two groups of patients are treated by the same doctor and course, the arguer cannot draw any reliable conclusions based on the study.
Thirdly, the arguer’s conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain
would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment is irresponsible. The arguer ignores the people who are allergic to antibiotics and some people whose body are so feeble that they cannot take that.
To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the study’s results is statistically reliable and the treatment of the patient is completely same.
