[a习作temp] argument25 [复制链接]

doubtingthomas
UID: 2529243

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 308
注册时间: 2008-8-8
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-8-21 10:20:40 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

"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."
WORDS: 378 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2008-8-21 9:59:51

The speaker recommends that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics. To justify his statement, the speaker mentions a study. The assertion looks persuasive at first glance, indeed it suffers from a multitude of critical fallacies.

First, I find the study problematic. The speaker fails to tell us the number of the patient participated in the study. We all know that the less the number, the less credible the results. Even if the sample-size is large enough and results are typical enough, the speaker fails to consider the other influencing factors. For example, the difference on proficiency of the two doctors may be contributable. It is highly possible that the difference between the two group results from the treat is different. Similarly, the speaker gives no information of the situation of the two groups of these patients. Maybe the injuries of the first group are not as badly as the second one. Without ruling out these possibilities, the speaker's assumption that the antibiotics can shorten the rehabilitation time is poorly supported.

Secondly, the speaker asserts that these patients suffer from secondary infections, which on evidence support that. Even if the antibiotics has its effect on shorten the rehabilitation time. We can not get the assumption that this effect is because of the medicine has its effect on eliminating the secondary infections. We all know that penicillin has effect on curing headache but this medicine is made as a kind of antibiotics.

The speaker makes a mistake of a hasty conclusion, he recommends all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take this kind of medicine. No evidence is given that all the patients are well represented by these two groups of people. Maybe because of the location of the hospital, patients all suffer another ill, for instance, lack of vitamin which is the right cause of the secondary infections, while people of other area don't suffer such an ill.

In conclusion, the speaker's assertion is problematic. To strengthen his recommendation he should demonstrate that the two groups of patients are typical representatives of all patients and he should assure the circumstances of the two groups of patients are all the same. To better evaluate the recommendation, we need information of other potential factors.

回应
0

使用道具举报

大人先生
UID: 2316212

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 224
注册时间: 2007-3-19
精华: 0
帖子: 1

沙发

发表于 2008-8-21 20:49:27 |只看该作者

argument25
"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."
WORDS: 378 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2008-8-21 9:59:51

The speaker recommends that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics. To justify his statement, the speaker mentions a study. The assertion looks persuasive at first glance; indeed it suffers from a multitude of critical fallacies. （看来你是看准了简练性的开头了）

First, I find the study problematic （这种开头我认为还是算了，没有任何实际意义，属于空话了）. The speaker fails to tell us the number of the patient participated in the study. We all know that the less the number, the less credible the results. Even if the sample-size is large enough and results are typical enough（换成significant，我们搞医学很重视的词哈）, the speaker fails to consider the other influencing factors. For example, the difference on proficiency of the two doctors may be contributable. It is highly possible that the difference between the two group results from the treat is different. Similarly, the speaker gives no information of the situation of the two groups of these patients. Maybe the injuries of the first group are not as badly as the second one. Without ruling out these possibilities, the speaker's assumption that the antibiotics can shorten the rehabilitation time is poorly supported. （逻辑错误找的很好啊）（另外还可以批驳归因，就是第一个组的恢复不一定是因为Antibiotic的作用）

Secondly, the speaker asserts that these patients suffer from secondary infections, which on evidence support that. Even if the antibiotics has its effect on shorten the rehabilitation time. We can not get the assumption that this effect is because of the medicine has its effect on eliminating the secondary infections.（ We all know that penicillin has effect on curing headache but this medicine is made as a kind of antibiotics）. （这点说实话论证的我有点不明白，不过看出来你想批驳二次感染，我个人认为二次感染这个东西根下面的完全脱节，没有啥子关系样的）

The speaker makes a mistake of a hasty conclusion, he recommends all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take this kind of medicine. No evidence is given that all the patients are well represented by these two groups of people. Maybe because of the location of the hospital, patients all suffer another ill, for instance, lack of vitamin which is the right cause of the secondary infections, while people of other area don't suffer such an ill. （这点虽然找到了逻辑点，但是我不认为批驳的很好，一般来数，这里首先做个让步，就是说Antibiotic的确可以提升Muscle healing,在此基础上再去批驳会显得更加有层次感，你这一搞，等于又回到归因上面去了。可以说Antibiotic可能不适合某些过敏的病人，或者与病人其他用药有Side Effect等等这些，总之表明这不是唯一和最好的选择）

In conclusion, the speaker's assertion is problematic. To strengthen his recommendation he should demonstrate that the two groups of patients are typical representatives of all patients and he should assure the circumstances of the two groups of patients are all the same. To better evaluate the recommendation, we need information of other potential factors.
个人觉得这种最难写，论据集中，非常容易组织的混乱。

[ 本帖最后由大人先生于 2008-8-21 20:52 编辑 ]

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报