argument51

maylUID: 2162549

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter.
1.没有直接证据证明抗生素防止了二次感染
2.作者没有考虑到医生的医术的差别
3.作者没有涉及参加研究的样本数量
"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：430         

The speaker claims that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotic as part of their treatment. To justify the conclusion, the arguer cites an example in which those who take antibiotic heal are much faster than those who do not. However, a careful scrutiny of this analysis would reveal how groundless of this conclusion.

First of all, the arguer does not give direct evidence that those who take antibiotic avoid secondary infections. It is very possible that although the patients in the first group take antibiotic, they still have secondary infections. And patients in the second group, although do not take antibiotic, do not get secondary infection. Then the short reputation time should not be owed to antibiotic. Perhaps they are all athlete and have strong body and exercise properly under the advise of the doctor, then it is common that their reputation time is much short than other people.

Secondly, for the doctors of the two groups are not in the same major, the result of the study lacks credibility and can not lends strong support for the conclusion. As the arguer mentioned Dr. Newland (N) is a doctor who specializes in sport medicine while the Dr. Alton (A) is a general physician. Then it is common that N would be more likely provide effective treatment for he is more expert in this area compared to A. N can point out how and how long should the patients exercise and when should they participate what kind of exercise, all of which are important for reputation. So, without role out the effectiveness of the doctor, the arguer can not reach his conclusion.

Finally, without any information of the number of the patients in each group, we have every reason to doubt whether the result is representative. A threshold example is that there are only two patients in each group and the patients of the first group are young men while the second are old men. Then the result can not prove that it is the antibiotic that reduces the reputation time, but the age and the quality of the patients' body.

In sum, the arguer fails to convince us that antibiotic is useful for muscle strain. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer should prove that the antibiotic are effective in preventing secondary infections and the effectiveness of doctors are the same. To better evaluate the conclusion, the arguer should also point out that the sample is enough to be representative and the condition of them are similar or same, such as age, the condition of the injury.

[ Last edited by mayl on 2005-12-20 at 14:43 ]

安婧UID: 2156480

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter.
1.没有直接证据证明抗生素防止了二次感染
2.作者没有考虑到医生的医术的差别
3.作者没有涉及参加研究的样本数量
"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：430         

The speaker claims that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotic as part of their treatment. To justify the conclusion, the arguer cites an example in which those who take antibiotic heal are much faster than those who do not. However, a careful scrutiny of this analysis would reveal how groundless of this conclusion.[最后一句没看懂。怎么又是careful scrutiny了？]

First of all, the arguer does not give direct evidence that those who take antibiotic avoid secondary infections. It is very possible that although the patients in the first group take antibiotic, they still have secondary infections. And patients in the second group, although do not take antibiotic, do not get secondary infection. Then the short reputation[变短的是康复的时间，而不是reputation] time should not be owed to antibiotic. Perhaps they are all athlete and have strong body and exercise properly under the advise of the doctor, then it is common that their reputation time is much short than other people.[这个逻辑错误找的真好。我怎么都没有想到呢。]

Secondly, for the doctors of the two groups are not in the same major, the result of the study lacks credibility and can not lends strong support for the conclusion. As the arguer mentioned Dr. Newland (N) is a doctor who specializes in sport medicine while the Dr. Alton (A) is a general physician. Then it is common that N would be more likely provide effective treatment for he is more expert in this area compared to A. N can point out how and how long should the patients exercise and when should they participate what kind of exercise, all of which are important for reputation. So, without role out the effectiveness of the[the two] doctor[doctors], the arguer can not reach his conclusion.

Finally, without any information of the number of the patients in each group, we have every reason to doubt whether the result is representative. A threshold example is that there are only two patients in each group and the patients of the first group are young men while the second are old men. Then the result can not prove that it is the antibiotic that reduces the reputation time, but the age and the quality of the patients' body.[嗯，好。但是还可以再丰满一点]

In sum, the arguer fails to convince us that antibiotic is useful for muscle strain. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer should prove that the antibiotic are effective in preventing secondary infections and the effectiveness of doctors are the same. To better evaluate the conclusion, the arguer should also point out that the sample is enough to be representative and the condition of them are similar or same, such as age, the condition of the injury.

[总体感觉还好，逻辑错误找的挺好的，但是第三个错误无论从力度还是论证与前两个相比都略显单薄。论述还可以再深如一些，这样字数也就上来了。刚练作文还是要注重思维的吧，等思维成型了似乎就不好该了。等Sally的总结贴出来可以看看队友找的其他谬误，开拓一下思路。
Mayl 还是做的很好的！继续加油！]