ARGUE51求拍！！！
[size=12pt]OPIC: ARGUMENT51 -The following appeared in a medical newsletter. [/size][size=12pt] [/size]
[size=12pt]"Doctors havelong suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healingquickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved bypreliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group ofpatients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor whospecializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout theirtreatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker thantypically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr.Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patientsbelieved they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was notsignificantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with musclestrain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of theirtreatment."[/size]
[size=12pt]WORDS: 459
TIME: 00:29:13
DATE: 2008/9/2 15:16:18[/size]
[size=12pt] [/size]
[size=12pt]
Merely based on unfounded assumption anddubious evidence, the statement draws a conclusion that all patients who arediagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as partof their treatment. To support the conclusion, the arguer cited the preliminaryresults of the study of the two groups of patients who are all being treatedfor muscle injuries by the same doctor. The group of patients who takeantibiotics recurred quicker than the group which were given sugar pills. Moreover,the arguer infers that the group of patients' average recuperation time whotook sugar pills was not significantly reduced unlike patients who tookantibiotics. However, this alone neither constitutes a logical argument infavor of the conclusion nor provides compelling support making the argumentsound. The arguer ignores certain important concerns. In my point of view ,thisargument suffers from several [/size]
[size=12pt]
The first problem lines in that the authordoes not inform us about the severity of injuries, physical conditions of thetwo groups. Therefore it is controversial to compare the reactions from theirpatients. If the group of patients who take antibiotics on average have aslight muscle injuries than the other group, it seems to be unpersuasive toillustrate antibiotics could take a positive effective in the muscle treatmentmerely from the fact that the former group of patients recovered quicker thantypically expected.[/size]
[size=12pt]
Next, not all patients who are diagnosed withmuscle strain will suffer from seconding infections. Thus it is unfairly toassume that every patient should be necessary to take antibiotics who arediagnosed with muscle strain. As we all know, antibiotics are something againstinfections. Considering a patients not being infected, it would beinsignificant to take antibiotics.[/size]
[size=12pt]
The third point is that not all patients aresuitable to taking antibiotics. No evidence could demonstrate that everypatient taking antibiotics could help them recover quicker. There exist thepossibility that some patients' body structure can not absorb antibiotics assome helpful medicine to treat with infection .So the treatment of each patientwho suffer from muscle injuries should be a case-by-case method. Thus, the arguer'sconclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would takeantibiotics seems to be unreliable.[/size]
[size=12pt]
To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibilityin that the study cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to thearguer's claim. To better assess the study's reliability ,The arguer shouldtake the two groups into the same standards so that the comparison would beaccessible. To strengthen the argument the arguer should take evidence that anypatients who are diagnosed with muscle strain will suffer from secondinginfection .Therefore the conclusion that all patients should be well advised totake antibiotics as part of their treatment is rational.[/size][size=12pt][/size]
页:
[1]