gre argument 51(修改版)

　　gre argument 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.

　　1.作者忽视了两组病人的差别

　　2.比较受限而且忽视负面影响

　　In this argument, the author recommends that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this recommendation, the arguer gives an evidence that is based on a comparison relevant to the efficiency of different treatments between two groups. One of them was treated along with antibiotics leading to spending much few time than another group which were provided with sugar pills. In first glance, the conclusion may enjoy rational aspects, it suffers from several logical problems.

　　To begin with, the information provided is insufficient about the two groups of patients and falsely rests on the gratuitous assumption that those patients are in the same situation like the severity of injury, the physical conditions, gender, age and so forth. Especially, the extent of the muscle strain and the physical condition are two essential aspects which in some degree determine the velocity of recovery and even prolong or reduce the time of restoration. Thus without ruling out these factors or providing stronger proof about the samples in treatment, two parts indeed are not comparable at all and the authors conclusion about efficiency may become unconvincing or even absurd.

　　In addition, when arguer draws the conclusion, he bases on another assumption that anyone who is a patient of muscle strain may be infected. However, this is on the contrary to the empiricism and author does not provide any further explanation about the probability on a man who gets hurt on muscle may gets infected.

　　Finally, if we admit that two groups are in the same condition, the arguer is presenting a false dilemma about the methods of treatment in muscle strain. On one hand, there may be some other therapies better than both the antibiotic and sugar pills unmentioned in this recommendation. And on the other hand, in fact, antibiotic is not proper to anyone because it may lead patients to allergy which is a negative impact and anyone including doctor who gives blind eye to this point cannot pay the price. Thus, before including other treatments in this comparison, the recommendation that patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take this as part of treatment is not convincing.

　　In conclusion, this argument is not well reasoned and like credibility because the arguer oversimplifies both the problem and its possible treatments. To strengthen the argument the author should provide more information about the patients and also should offer other possible method on treating muscle strain when coming to the recommendation.