tiaw
Jul 5, 2010
Writing Feedback / GRE: argument51: antibiotics, a part of treatment for muscle strain patients?? [4]
51The 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."
The author of this article recommends in this newsletter that all patients who suffer muscle strain would treat with antibiotics to prevent themselves from getting secondary infections. To support this recommendation the author points out at the beginning of that there is a relationship recognized by the medical field between the occurrence of secondary infections and the bad recuperation of the severe muscle strain. Besides, the author cites a study to illustrate the reasonable of the recommendation as well. However, after given a scientific examination of the study, several logical flaws that make the result sounds lame appears.
First of all, no well-established evidence suggests the occurrence of secondary infections has something to do with the healing of the muscle strain patients. Though the doctors think for a long time there may be some correlation between them, yet it is just guessing. Moreover, the study that the author cites and intends to justify the guessing above turns to be less helpful.
The design of this study contains many unreasonable aspect. First, we were told that the patients who enrolled the study were separated into two groups. However, the article provides no important information like who is qualified to be the sample of the research (that is the inclusive criteria of the patients); do they have the similar background which would include but not limited to their age, sex, occupation, physical feature , degree of their injure etc.; how does the two group be categorized(that is the reason of the category). All the questions mentioned above directly affect the credibility and reliability of the result.
Second, the patients in the two groups in the study are treated by Dr.Newland who specializes in sports medicine and Dr. Alton who is a general physician respectively. Due to the different professional background of the two researchers, there is a possibility that Dr. Newland might give a more professional treatment toward his patients than Dr. Alton do. If the study cannot made sure the variable in the two groups contain only the difference of the use of the antibiotics, then this would definitely render the argument unpersuasive.
Third, Dr. Alton's group is subscribed with sugar pills as a control group. However, the author fails to give a detailed description of the sugar pills. Are they safe for the patients and will not cause any unpredictable outcome among them? Most importantly, do they possess exact the same attributes include the smell, the shape etc. As the real pills besides the only difference between the effective elements? If not, it may change the result.
Forth, even assuming that using antibiotics dose help the recovery of the muscle strain patients. Is it the only reason? Additionally, the author provides no evidence to illustrate that using antibiotics can surly decrease the incident of the secondary infection.
In sum, the author's recommendation is not well supported. We need more detailed information concerning the research before we draw a convincing conclusion.
thans a lot!!!!!!!!
51The 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."
The author of this article recommends in this newsletter that all patients who suffer muscle strain would treat with antibiotics to prevent themselves from getting secondary infections. To support this recommendation the author points out at the beginning of that there is a relationship recognized by the medical field between the occurrence of secondary infections and the bad recuperation of the severe muscle strain. Besides, the author cites a study to illustrate the reasonable of the recommendation as well. However, after given a scientific examination of the study, several logical flaws that make the result sounds lame appears.
First of all, no well-established evidence suggests the occurrence of secondary infections has something to do with the healing of the muscle strain patients. Though the doctors think for a long time there may be some correlation between them, yet it is just guessing. Moreover, the study that the author cites and intends to justify the guessing above turns to be less helpful.
The design of this study contains many unreasonable aspect. First, we were told that the patients who enrolled the study were separated into two groups. However, the article provides no important information like who is qualified to be the sample of the research (that is the inclusive criteria of the patients); do they have the similar background which would include but not limited to their age, sex, occupation, physical feature , degree of their injure etc.; how does the two group be categorized(that is the reason of the category). All the questions mentioned above directly affect the credibility and reliability of the result.
Second, the patients in the two groups in the study are treated by Dr.Newland who specializes in sports medicine and Dr. Alton who is a general physician respectively. Due to the different professional background of the two researchers, there is a possibility that Dr. Newland might give a more professional treatment toward his patients than Dr. Alton do. If the study cannot made sure the variable in the two groups contain only the difference of the use of the antibiotics, then this would definitely render the argument unpersuasive.
Third, Dr. Alton's group is subscribed with sugar pills as a control group. However, the author fails to give a detailed description of the sugar pills. Are they safe for the patients and will not cause any unpredictable outcome among them? Most importantly, do they possess exact the same attributes include the smell, the shape etc. As the real pills besides the only difference between the effective elements? If not, it may change the result.
Forth, even assuming that using antibiotics dose help the recovery of the muscle strain patients. Is it the only reason? Additionally, the author provides no evidence to illustrate that using antibiotics can surly decrease the incident of the secondary infection.
In sum, the author's recommendation is not well supported. We need more detailed information concerning the research before we draw a convincing conclusion.
thans a lot!!!!!!!!